In which case, the Supreme Court observed that "The objectives specified in the Preamble contain the basic structure of our Constitution, which can not be amended in the exercise of the power under Article 368 of the Constitution"?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 1:

The correct option is 1: **Keshavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala, 1973**.

This judgment is arguably the most significant case in Indian constitutional law. It was heard by the largest-ever Supreme Court bench of 13 judges and delivered on April 24, 1973. The core issue before the Court was the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. Parliament, through the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments, had asserted its power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and explicitly stated that amendments could not be subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court, in a narrow 7:6 verdict, upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution but introduced the seminal doctrine of the “Basic Structure” (or basic features) of the Constitution. Critically, while the Court held that the Preamble itself could be amended (as it was part of the Constitution), it explicitly ruled that the objectives specified in the Preamble, such as sovereignty, democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, constitute the non-negotiable basic structure of the Constitution. Consequently, Parliament, under its amending power (Article 368), can amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter, destroy, or abrogate its basic structure. This observation permanently curtailed Parliament's power, ensuring that the foundational values of the Republic, including those articulated in the Preamble, remain sacrosanct and beyond the reach of amendment.

The incorrect option is 2:

**Harivansh V. State of Maharashtra, 1971**, is an incorrect option because this case primarily dealt with criminal law, specifically focusing on the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It did not involve a constitutional challenge regarding the amending power of Parliament (Article 368) or the scope of the Preamble. This case is not associated with the formulation or observance of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Landmark constitutional cases dealing with the Preamble's status, like *Berubari Union Case* (where the Preamble was initially denied status as part of the Constitution) or *Keshavananda Bharati*, are distinct from judgments focused on procedural legal matters or evidence laws. Therefore, it holds no relevance to the specific observation about the Preamble containing the unamendable Basic Structure.

The incorrect option is 3:

**Thakur Amar Singh V. State of Rajasthan, 1955**, is an incorrect option. This early case predates the core controversy surrounding the Basic Structure Doctrine by almost two decades. The 1955 judgment primarily dealt with the validity of land reform legislation enacted by the State of Rajasthan, specifically challenging the classification of *jagir* (land tenure) under the relevant laws. While this case is important in the context of land reforms and the early application of Article 14 (Equality before law), it did not address, nor did the Supreme Court observe, anything related to the Preamble's status as containing the unamendable basic structure. This doctrine emerged much later as a response to the confrontation between the Executive/Legislature and the Judiciary.

The incorrect option is 4:

**Menaka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978**, is an incorrect option. While *Menaka Gandhi* is a highly significant landmark case in Indian jurisprudence, it is famous for revolutionizing the interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court established that Article 21's protection covers a wide range of rights necessary for a dignified life and introduced the concept that "procedure established by law" must be fair, just, and reasonable (the due process principle). However, the *Menaka Gandhi* case built upon the Basic Structure Doctrine established in *Keshavananda Bharati*; it did not establish or originate the doctrine itself, nor did the primary observation regarding the Preamble's status as the basic structure come from this 1978 ruling. The key observation about the Preamble belongs exclusively to the 1973 verdict.