Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 69

The Basic Structure Doctrine is one of the most important principles in Indian constitutional law. It states that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy its basic features. This doctrine ensures that the Constitution retains its identity and core values even when amendments are made. It acts as a safeguard against the misuse of constitutional amendment powers and preserves the democratic framework established by the Constitution.

The doctrine was firmly established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. In this historic decision, a 13-judge Bench held that Parliament could amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but could not damage or destroy its basic structure. Although the Court did not provide an exhaustive list of basic features, it recognised principles such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, judicial review, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, democracy, and the protection of fundamental rights as part of its basic structure.

The doctrine was further strengthened in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment that attempted to exclude the election of the Prime Minister from judicial review. The Court held that free and fair elections and judicial review form part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be removed even through a constitutional amendment.

Another significant decision was Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is itself limited and that maintaining a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is a part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The judgment reaffirmed that no constitutional amendment can grant Parliament unlimited authority.

Today, the Basic Structure Doctrine serves as a constitutional safeguard. It prevents any constitutional amendment that would fundamentally alter India’s democratic, republican, secular, federal, or judicial framework. Although Parliament continues to enjoy broad powers to amend the Constitution, those powers must always remain consistent with the Constitution’s essential identity.

Questions

Question 1

Parliament passes a constitutional amendment stating that the Supreme Court shall no longer have the power to examine whether constitutional amendments violate the Constitution. Riya files a petition challenging the amendment, arguing that it destroys an essential constitutional principle.

Which of the following is the strongest legal argument?

A. Judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be removed by a constitutional amendment.

B. Parliament cannot amend any provision of the Constitution after 1973.

C. Judicial review exists only through ordinary legislation and may be abolished at any time.

D. Courts cannot examine constitutional amendments once Parliament approves them.

Question 2

To ensure faster governance, Parliament amends the Constitution to provide that all future constitutional amendments will become valid without any possibility of judicial scrutiny. Aarav argues that this amendment is unconstitutional.

Which option best reflects the Basic Structure Doctrine?

A. Parliament’s amendment power is completely unlimited.

B. Parliament cannot enlarge its own amending power in a manner that destroys the Constitution’s basic structure.

C. Judicial review applies only to ordinary laws and never to constitutional amendments.

D. Every constitutional amendment automatically becomes valid once passed by Parliament.

Question 3

A constitutional amendment provides that elections to the offices of the President and Prime Minister cannot be challenged before any court under any circumstances. Mehul challenges the amendment.

Which statement is legally most accurate?

A. Free and fair elections, along with judicial review, are recognised as part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

B. Elections are purely political matters and courts never have jurisdiction over them.

C. Parliament may permanently exclude all election disputes from judicial review.

D. The Constitution contains no limitations on Parliament’s amending power.

Question 4

Parliament amends the Constitution stating that it may abolish Fundamental Rights whenever it considers it necessary, and that courts cannot question such amendments. Nisha challenges the amendment.

Which option best reflects constitutional law?

A. Parliament may abolish any constitutional provision whenever it wishes.

B. Courts cannot review constitutional amendments once enacted.

C. Fundamental Rights can never be amended under any circumstances.

D. Parliament’s amending power is limited and cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

Question 5

A constitutional amendment declares that India will no longer function as a democratic republic and instead all executive power shall permanently vest in one unelected authority. Kabir files a petition challenging the amendment.

What is the most appropriate legal conclusion?

A. Parliament may replace democracy whenever it secures a constitutional majority.

B. The amendment is valid because constitutional amendments cannot be questioned.

C. Democracy is protected only by ordinary legislation.

D. Democracy is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be abolished through a constitutional amendment.

Answers with Explanation

Question 1 — Answer: A

The Basic Structure Doctrine recognises judicial review as one of the Constitution’s essential features. Parliament cannot remove the courts’ power to examine constitutional amendments that violate the Constitution’s basic structure.

• Option A is correct.
• Option B is incorrect because Parliament can amend the Constitution, subject to basic structure limitations.
• Options C and D incorrectly deny the constitutional status of judicial review.

Question 2 — Answer: B

The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills held that Parliament cannot convert its limited amending power into an unlimited one. Any amendment eliminating judicial scrutiny of constitutional amendments would violate the Basic Structure Doctrine.

• Option B is correct.
• Option A wrongly suggests unlimited amendment powers.
• Options C and D ignore the constitutional limitations recognised by the Supreme Court.

Question 3 — Answer: A

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Supreme Court held that free and fair elections and judicial review form part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Parliament cannot completely exclude election disputes from judicial scrutiny through constitutional amendments.

• Option A is correct.
• Options B, C and D are inconsistent with constitutional law.

Question 4 — Answer: D

The Basic Structure Doctrine limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Amendments that destroy its essential identity, including core constitutional principles and protections, are unconstitutional.

• Option D is correct.
• Option A ignores constitutional limitations.
• Option B incorrectly excludes judicial review.
• Option C is too broad because Fundamental Rights may be amended so long as the amendment does not damage the basic structure.

Question 5 — Answer: D

Democracy is one of the recognised features of the Constitution’s basic structure. Parliament cannot abolish India’s democratic form of government through a constitutional amendment.

• Option D is correct.
• Options A and B wrongly assume Parliament has unlimited amending power.
• Option C incorrectly states that democracy is protected only through ordinary legislation.