A) The Supreme Court took away the right of Parliament to amend the Fundamental Rights
B) The Supreme Court declared that Parliament had no right to amend the Fundamental Rights
C) The Supreme Court upheld the right of Parliament to amend any part of Constitution including Part III of the Constitution but it also declared that Parliament had no right to amend the basic structure of the Constitution
D) None of the above
Correct Answer: C
Solution :[c] Article 368, on a plain reading, did not contain any limitation on the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution. There was nothing that prevented Parliament from taking away a citizen's right to freedom of speech or his religious freedom. But the repeated amendments made to the Constitution raised a doubt: was there any inherent or implied limitation on the amending power of Parliament? The 703-page judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala revealed a sharply divided court and, by a wafer- thin majority of 7:6, it was held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend "the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution." This was the inherent and implied limitation on the amending power of Parliament. This basic structure doctrine, as future events showed, saved Indian democracy and Kesavananda Bharati will always occupy a hallowed place in our constitutional history.
You need to login to perform this action.
You will be redirected in 3 sec