Consider the following pairs regarding key Supreme Court judgments and their constitutional outcomes:
1. Golaknath Case (1967) - Held that Parliament cannot curtail or take away Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments.
2. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) - Propounded the 'Basic Structure' doctrine, limiting the amending power of Parliament.
3. Minerva Mills Case (1980) - Affirmed the power of the judiciary to review constitutional amendments to protect the basic features of the Constitution.

Which of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Question

Consider the following pairs regarding key Supreme Court judgments and their constitutional outcomes:
1. Golaknath Case (1967) - Held that Parliament cannot curtail or take away Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments.
2. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) - Propounded the 'Basic Structure' doctrine, limiting the amending power of Parliament.
3. Minerva Mills Case (1980) - Affirmed the power of the judiciary to review constitutional amendments to protect the basic features of the Constitution.

Which of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

All pairs are correctly matched. In the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Article 368 only contains the procedure to amend and does not empower Parliament to take away Fundamental Rights. In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court ruled that Parliament's amending power is wide but limited by the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Court re-emphasized that the judiciary has the right to protect these basic features and can review any constitutional amendment on this ground.

Answer

Answer