The correct answer is (c).
The basic structure doctrine is a constitutional doctrine under which certain features of the Indian Constitution are considered to be fundamental and cannot be amended by Parliament. The doctrine was first outlined in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court of India was asked to rule on the validity of the 24th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which had amended Article 368 to allow Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution. The Court held that the 24th Amendment was unconstitutional, as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution is made up of the following features:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Republican and secular character of the State
- Federal character of the State
- Separation of powers
- Rule of law
- Judicial review
- Fundamental rights
The Court held that these features are fundamental to the Indian Constitution and cannot be amended by Parliament.
The basic structure doctrine has been used by the Supreme Court to strike down a number of laws and amendments that it has found to be unconstitutional. The doctrine has been controversial, with some arguing that it gives the Supreme Court too much power. However, the doctrine has been upheld by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions, and it is now an established part of Indian constitutional law.
The other options are incorrect because they do not outline the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
(a) Gopalan v. Madras State was a case decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1950. The case concerned the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, which allowed the government to detain people without trial. The Court upheld the validity of the Act, holding that it did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
(b) Golaknath v. Punjab State was a case decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1967. The case concerned the validity of the 17th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which had amended Article 368 to allow Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution. The Court held that the 17th Amendment was unconstitutional, as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the Court also held that Parliament could amend the fundamental rights, provided that the amendment did not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
(d) None of these is the correct answer.