Basic structure and constitutional amendments
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and its limits.
All 12 judgments in our library on this topic, oldest first.
0 of 12 read
Start: I.C. Golak Nath v. State of PunjabYour progress is kept in this browser. Sign in to keep it on every device and count it in your reading streak.
27 February 1967 · 11 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
I.C. Golak Nath v. State of PunjabBy 6:5, the Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights, rejecting Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, but left existing amendments in force and dismissed the petitions.
On this path for: Article 368, Constitution; Article 31B and Ninth Schedule, Constitution
24 April 1973 · 13 judges · cited by 6 judgments in this library
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of KeralaBy seven judges to six, the Court held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 does not include power to alter its basic structure; it upheld the 24th and 29th Amendments but struck down part of Article 31C.
On this path for: Article 368, Constitution; Article 31B, Constitution; Basic structure
7 November 1975 · 5 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj NarainBy majority, clause (4) of Article 329A, which declared the Prime Minister's disputed election valid, was held unconstitutional; all five judges upheld the retrospective election law amendments, so her appeal succeeded and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
On this path for: Article 368, Constitution; Article 31B, Constitution; Basic structure
9 May 1980 · 5 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Waman Rao v. Union of IndiaThe Court upheld Articles 31A, 31B and the unamended Article 31C, holding that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 are fully protected, while later additions are valid only if they do not damage the basic structure.
On this path for: Article 31B and Ninth Schedule, Constitution; Article 368, Constitution; Basic structure
31 July 1980 · 5 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of IndiaThe Court struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, holding that a limited amending power, judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are parts of the basic structure.
On this path for: Article 368(4) and (5), Constitution; Basic structure
9 December 1986 · 5 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of IndiaThe Court upheld the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the Tribunal is an equally effective substitute for the High Court, and required changes to its composition and appointments.
On this path for: Basic structure
18 February 1992 · 5 judges · cited by 4 judgments in this library
Kihoto Hollohan v. ZachillhuThe majority upheld the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) except Paragraph 7, which was invalid for want of ratification and severable; Speakers' disqualification decisions are subject to limited judicial review.
On this path for: Article 368(2), proviso, Constitution
11 January 2007 · 9 judges
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil NaduLaws placed in the Ninth Schedule by amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 get no blanket immunity and can be tested against the basic structure, as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19.
On this path for: Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule, Constitution; Article 368, Constitution; Basic structure
6 May 2014 · 5 judges · cited by 1 judgment in this library
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of IndiaArticle 15(5) and Article 21A do not violate the basic structure and are valid; the Right to Education Act, 2009 is valid against private unaided schools but cannot apply to minority schools, aided or unaided.
On this path for: Article 368, Constitution; Basic structure
16 October 2015 · 5 judges
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of IndiaBy a 4:1 majority, the Court declared the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 unconstitutional and void, and held that the earlier collegium system of appointing Judges stood revived.
On this path for: Article 368, Constitution; Basic structure
20 July 2021 · 3 judges
Union of India v. Rajendra N. ShahPart IXB, inserted by the Constitution 97th Amendment, needed ratification by half the States because it significantly curtailed the States' exclusive power over co-operative societies; without ratification it is inoperative except for multi-State co-operative societies.
On this path for: Article 368(2) proviso, Constitution
7 November 2022 · 5 judges
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of IndiaBy a 3:2 majority, the Constitution Bench upheld the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which enables up to ten per cent. reservation for economically weaker sections other than SCs, STs and non-creamy layer OBCs.
On this path for: Article 368, Constitution; Basic structure
Test yourself: 170 practice questions on landmark judgments, with explanations.