Consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution of India defines its structure in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy. 2. The Constitution of India provides for 'Judicial review' to safeguard the citizens' liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based. Which of the statements given above is are correct?
Contents12
- A1 only
- B2 only
- CBoth 1 and 2
- DNeither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (B) 2 only
Statement 1 (Constitution defines its basic structure) — NOT CORRECT:
The Constitution does NOT explicitly define its "basic structure" anywhere in its text.
The "basic structure doctrine" was created by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
The Court said Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its basic structure — but what constitutes "basic structure" has been identified through various court judgments over time (federalism, secularism, democracy, judicial review, etc.).
The Constitution itself doesn't list these.
Statement 2 (Constitution provides for judicial review) — CORRECT:
While the exact term "judicial review" is not written in the Constitution, the power is implied through several articles.
- Article 13 says laws violating fundamental rights are void.
- Articles 32 and 226 allow the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs to protect rights.
Together, these provisions give courts the power to review and strike down laws — which IS judicial review.
Answer: B (2 only).
Key Takeaway: "Basic structure" was defined by the Supreme Court, NOT written in the Constitution.
Judicial review is implied (not explicitly mentioned) but is a reality through Articles 13, 32, and 226.
The Basic Structure Doctrine prevents Parliament from destroying the Constitution's core features through amendments, but the Constitution itself never defines what 'basic structure' means.
The Supreme Court created this doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) to limit Parliament's amendment power after concerns that fundamental rights could be completely removed.
UPSC is testing whether students understand the difference between what the Constitution explicitly states versus what the Supreme Court has interpreted through landmark judgments.
Basic Structure Doctrine
Indian Polity basic structure federalism secularism fundamental rights democracy
Basic Structure Doctrine: Supreme Court Creation, Not Constitutional Text
Basic structure doctrine was created by Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), NOT written in Constitution
Constitution nowhere defines what its basic structure is - this list emerged through court judgments
Parliament cannot amend Constitution to destroy its basic structure - SC's self-imposed limit
Core elements: federalism, secularism, democracy, judicial review, fundamental rights
Key Misconception
The Constitution does NOT define its own basic structure anywhere in its 395+ articles. This is a judicial doctrine created by the Supreme Court to limit Parliament's amending power.
Basic Structure Elements
Element | Source | Why Basic |
|---|---|---|
Federalism | SC judgment | Centre-state balance cannot be destroyed |
Secularism | SC judgment | State neutrality in religion is core identity |
Democracy | SC judgment | Representative government is foundational |
Judicial Review | SC judgment | Courts must check legislative/executive power |
Fundamental Rights | SC judgment | Individual liberty against state power |
Rule of Law | SC judgment | Law supreme over arbitrary power |
Evolution Through Cases
Kesavananda Bharati (1973): First declared basic structure doctrine - Parliament cannot destroy Constitution's essential features
Minerva Mills (1980): Added 'balance between fundamental rights and directive principles' as basic structure
Waman Rao (1981): Pre-1973 amendments immune from basic structure challenge
IR Coelho (2007): 9th Schedule amendments after 1973 can be reviewed if they violate basic structure
Trap: Constitution explicitly defines basic structure - FALSE, only SC judgments identify these elements
Trap: Basic structure doctrine exists in original Constitution - FALSE, created in 1973 case
Trap: Parliament has no limits on amendment power - FALSE, basic structure is the limit
Trap: All constitutional amendments can be challenged - FALSE, only those destroying basic structure
Judicial Review in Constitution
Indian Polity judicial review citizens' liberties Constitution
Judicial Review: Implied Power Through Constitutional Articles
Judicial review not explicitly mentioned but implied through Articles 13, 32, 226
Article 13: Laws violating fundamental rights are void - gives courts power to strike down laws
Article 32: SC can issue writs to enforce fundamental rights - 'Heart and Soul' of Constitution
Article 226: High Courts have wider writ jurisdiction than Supreme Court
Constitutional Reality
While 'judicial review' as a term doesn't appear in Constitution text, the power is real and derives from specific articles that empower courts to check legislative and executive actions.
Constitutional Basis
Article | Provision | Judicial Review Power |
|---|---|---|
Article 13 | Laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void | Courts can declare laws unconstitutional |
Article 32 | Right to Constitutional Remedies - SC writ jurisdiction | SC can issue writs against state/central govt |
Article 226 | High Court writ jurisdiction | HCs have wider power - can issue writs for any purpose |
Article 136 | Special Leave Petition to SC | SC can hear appeals from any court/tribunal |
Article 245 | Parliament/Assembly subject to Constitution | Legislative power limited by constitutional provisions |
Scope Differences
Supreme Court (Art 32): Writs only for fundamental rights enforcement - limited scope
High Courts (Art 226): Writs for any legal right violation - broader than SC
Judicial review covers both legislative acts (laws) and executive actions (govt decisions)
Courts can review constitutional amendments under basic structure doctrine since 1973
Trap: 'Judicial review' explicitly mentioned in Constitution - FALSE, it's an implied power
Trap: Only SC has judicial review power - FALSE, High Courts also have this power
Trap: Art 32 gives wider power than Art 226 - FALSE, High Courts have broader writ jurisdiction
Trap: Constitutional amendments cannot be reviewed - FALSE, basic structure doctrine allows review
Constitutional Interpretation Methods
Indian Polity
How Courts Find Powers Not Explicitly Written in Constitution
Textual interpretation: What Constitution explicitly says vs what it implies
Judicial creativity: Courts find powers through logical interpretation of existing articles
Many constitutional powers are implied rather than explicit - normal in constitutional law
Constitutional Silence
Constitution cannot explicitly mention every power or doctrine. Courts interpret constitutional text to find implied powers that serve constitutional purposes - this is standard practice globally.
Explicit vs Implied Powers
Power/Doctrine | Explicit in Constitution? | How Courts Found It |
|---|---|---|
Judicial Review | No | Articles 13, 32, 226 together imply this power |
Basic Structure | No | Logical limit on amendment power to preserve Constitution |
Presidential Rule | Yes | Article 356 explicitly provides for this |
Right to Privacy | No | Derived from Article 21 (right to life) in Puttaswamy case |
Separation of Powers | No | Implied through different chapters for legislature, executive, judiciary |
Interpretation Principles
Purposive interpretation: Courts look at Constitution's overall purpose, not just literal text
Harmonious construction: Different articles read together to avoid contradictions
Living document approach: Constitution must adapt to changing times through interpretation
Golden rule: When text is clear, follow it literally; when ambiguous, interpret to serve constitutional goals