The Supreme Court of India enunciated the doctrine of ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’ in

the Golaknath Case in 1967
the Sajjan Singh Case in 1965
the Shankari Prasad Case in 1951
the Keshavanand Bharati case in 1973

The correct answer is (d). The Supreme Court of India enunciated the doctrine of ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’ in the Keshavanand Bharati case in 1973.

The doctrine of basic structure is a constitutional doctrine that holds that certain features of the Constitution of India are fundamental and cannot be amended. The doctrine was first enunciated by the Supreme Court of India in the Keshavanand Bharati case in 1973. In this case, the Court was asked to rule on the validity of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which had amended Article 368 to allow for the amendment of any provision of the Constitution. The Court held that the 24th Amendment was unconstitutional, as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Court identified the following features as being part of the basic structure of the Constitution:

  • Sovereignty of India
  • Republican and democratic form of government
  • Secular character of the state
  • Unity and integrity of the nation
  • Supremacy of the Constitution
  • Rule of law
  • Fundamental rights
  • Judicial review

The doctrine of basic structure has been used by the Supreme Court to strike down a number of laws and amendments to the Constitution. It has been a controversial doctrine, with some arguing that it gives the Court too much power. However, the Court has defended the doctrine, arguing that it is necessary to protect the fundamental values of the Constitution.

The other options are incorrect.

(a) The Golaknath Case in 1967 was a case in which the Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution could not be amended.

(b) The Sajjan Singh Case in 1965 was a case in which the Supreme Court held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was unlimited.

(c) The Shankari Prasad Case in 1951 was a case in which the Supreme Court held that Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, but that this power was not unlimited.

Exit mobile version