{"id":85637,"date":"2025-06-01T03:23:27","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T03:23:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=85637"},"modified":"2025-06-01T03:23:27","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T03:23:27","slug":"the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/","title":{"rendered":"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>1. the power of judicial review<\/li>\n<li>2. the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)<\/li>\n<li>3. the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India<\/li>\n<li>4. the judgment in Golaknath case (1967)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Select the correct answer given below.<\/p>\n<p>[amp_mcq option1=&#8221;1, 2 and 3 only&#8221; option2=&#8221;1, 2, 3 and 4&#8243; option3=&#8221;1 and 3 only&#8221; option4=&#8221;2 and 4 only&#8221; correct=&#8221;option1&#8243;]<\/p>\n<div class=\"psc-box-pyq-exam-year-detail\">\n<div class=\"pyq-exam\">\n<div class=\"psc-heading\">This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n<div class=\"psc-title line-ellipsis\">UPSC CDS-2 &#8211; 2016<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"pyq-exam-psc-buttons\"><a href=\"\/pyq\/pyq-upsc-cds-2-2016.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"psc-pdf-button\" rel=\"noopener\">Download PDF<\/a><a href=\"\/pyq-upsc-cds-2-2016\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"psc-attempt-button\" rel=\"noopener\">Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<section id=\"pyq-correct-answer\">\nThe basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to the power of judicial review, the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India.<br \/>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"pyq-key-points\">\n&#8211; The basic structure doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark *Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala* case in 1973. (Point 2 is correct).<br \/>\n&#8211; This doctrine holds that the Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot alter the &#8216;basic structure&#8217; or essential features of the Constitution. This imposes constraints on the amending power under Article 368. (Point 3 is correct).<br \/>\n&#8211; The doctrine itself is enforced and interpreted by the judiciary through its power of judicial review. While judicial review wasn&#8217;t explicitly listed as part of the basic structure in the original judgment, it is considered an essential feature in subsequent judgments (like *Minerva Mills* case) as it is the means to uphold the basic structure. (Point 1 is correct).<br \/>\n&#8211; The *Golaknath vs State of Punjab* case (1967) ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, but it did not formulate the basic structure doctrine. The *Kesavananda Bharati* case modified the *Golaknath* ruling, stating that fundamental rights could be amended, but not the basic structure. (Point 4 is incorrect).<br \/>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"pyq-additional-information\">\nElements identified as part of the basic structure by the Supreme Court in various judgments include the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, the secular character of the Constitution, separation of powers, federal character of the Constitution, unity and integrity of the nation, judicial review, harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and the rule of law.<br \/>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to 1. the power of judicial review 2. the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) 3. the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India 4. the judgment in Golaknath case (1967) Select the correct answer given below. [amp_mcq option1=&#8221;1, 2 and &#8230; <\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more-container\"><a title=\"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India\" class=\"read-more button\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/#more-85637\">Detailed Solution<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1088],"tags":[1098,1192,1099],"class_list":["post-85637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-cds-2","tag-1098","tag-constitutional-amendments","tag-indian-polity-and-governance","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v22.2 (Yoast SEO v23.3) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to the power of judicial review, the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India. - The basic structure doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark *Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala* case in 1973. (Point 2 is correct). - This doctrine holds that the Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot alter the &#039;basic structure&#039; or essential features of the Constitution. This imposes constraints on the amending power under Article 368. (Point 3 is correct). - The doctrine itself is enforced and interpreted by the judiciary through its power of judicial review. While judicial review wasn&#039;t explicitly listed as part of the basic structure in the original judgment, it is considered an essential feature in subsequent judgments (like *Minerva Mills* case) as it is the means to uphold the basic structure. (Point 1 is correct). - The *Golaknath vs State of Punjab* case (1967) ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, but it did not formulate the basic structure doctrine. The *Kesavananda Bharati* case modified the *Golaknath* ruling, stating that fundamental rights could be amended, but not the basic structure. (Point 4 is incorrect).\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to the power of judicial review, the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India. - The basic structure doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark *Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala* case in 1973. (Point 2 is correct). - This doctrine holds that the Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot alter the &#039;basic structure&#039; or essential features of the Constitution. This imposes constraints on the amending power under Article 368. (Point 3 is correct). - The doctrine itself is enforced and interpreted by the judiciary through its power of judicial review. While judicial review wasn&#039;t explicitly listed as part of the basic structure in the original judgment, it is considered an essential feature in subsequent judgments (like *Minerva Mills* case) as it is the means to uphold the basic structure. (Point 1 is correct). - The *Golaknath vs State of Punjab* case (1967) ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, but it did not formulate the basic structure doctrine. The *Kesavananda Bharati* case modified the *Golaknath* ruling, stating that fundamental rights could be amended, but not the basic structure. (Point 4 is incorrect).\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T03:23:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India","description":"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to the power of judicial review, the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India. - The basic structure doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark *Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala* case in 1973. (Point 2 is correct). - This doctrine holds that the Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot alter the 'basic structure' or essential features of the Constitution. This imposes constraints on the amending power under Article 368. (Point 3 is correct). - The doctrine itself is enforced and interpreted by the judiciary through its power of judicial review. While judicial review wasn't explicitly listed as part of the basic structure in the original judgment, it is considered an essential feature in subsequent judgments (like *Minerva Mills* case) as it is the means to uphold the basic structure. (Point 1 is correct). - The *Golaknath vs State of Punjab* case (1967) ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, but it did not formulate the basic structure doctrine. The *Kesavananda Bharati* case modified the *Golaknath* ruling, stating that fundamental rights could be amended, but not the basic structure. (Point 4 is incorrect).","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India","og_description":"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to the power of judicial review, the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India. - The basic structure doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark *Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala* case in 1973. (Point 2 is correct). - This doctrine holds that the Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot alter the 'basic structure' or essential features of the Constitution. This imposes constraints on the amending power under Article 368. (Point 3 is correct). - The doctrine itself is enforced and interpreted by the judiciary through its power of judicial review. While judicial review wasn't explicitly listed as part of the basic structure in the original judgment, it is considered an essential feature in subsequent judgments (like *Minerva Mills* case) as it is the means to uphold the basic structure. (Point 1 is correct). - The *Golaknath vs State of Punjab* case (1967) ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, but it did not formulate the basic structure doctrine. The *Kesavananda Bharati* case modified the *Golaknath* ruling, stating that fundamental rights could be amended, but not the basic structure. (Point 4 is incorrect).","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T03:23:27+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/","name":"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T03:23:27+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T03:23:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to the power of judicial review, the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India. - The basic structure doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark *Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala* case in 1973. (Point 2 is correct). - This doctrine holds that the Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot alter the 'basic structure' or essential features of the Constitution. This imposes constraints on the amending power under Article 368. (Point 3 is correct). - The doctrine itself is enforced and interpreted by the judiciary through its power of judicial review. While judicial review wasn't explicitly listed as part of the basic structure in the original judgment, it is considered an essential feature in subsequent judgments (like *Minerva Mills* case) as it is the means to uphold the basic structure. (Point 1 is correct). - The *Golaknath vs State of Punjab* case (1967) ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, but it did not formulate the basic structure doctrine. The *Kesavananda Bharati* case modified the *Golaknath* ruling, stating that fundamental rights could be amended, but not the basic structure. (Point 4 is incorrect).","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-basic-structure-doctrine-with-regard-to-the-constitution-of-india\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC CDS-2","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-cds-2\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85637","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=85637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}