Question

Under the Constitution of India, consider the following statements in the context of constitutional amendments: I. Judicial review extends to constitutional amendments. II. Laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24th April 1973 remain open to scrutiny for violation of the basic structure. III. Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is unlimited. Which of the above statements is/are correct?

• A. I only
• B. I and II
• C. II and III
• D. I, II and III

Hint:

Remember the two most important constitutional law cases: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) → Basic Structure Doctrine. I.R. Coelho (2007) → Ninth Schedule laws inserted after 24 April 1973 can be tested on the touchstone of Basic Structure.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Concept: The Constitution of India is a living document. Although Parliament has been given the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not absolute. The Supreme Court of India, through a series of landmark judgments, developed the Basic Structure Doctrine, according to which Parliament cannot amend or destroy the essential features of the Constitution. Some of these essential features include:

• Supremacy of the Constitution

• Rule of Law

• Judicial Review

• Separation of Powers

• Federalism

• Democracy

• Secularism
Therefore, every constitutional amendment is subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure that it does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Step 1: Examining Statement I regarding Judicial Review.
Statement I says: ``Judicial review extends to constitutional amendments.'' Judicial review refers to the power of courts to examine the constitutional validity of laws and governmental actions. Initially, Parliament claimed that constitutional amendments were beyond judicial review. However, this issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the famous Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case. The Court held that:

• Parliament can amend the Constitution.

• However, constitutional amendments can be reviewed by the judiciary.

• Any amendment violating the Basic Structure can be struck down.
Thus, constitutional amendments are not immune from judicial scrutiny. Therefore, \[ \boxed{\text{Statement I is Correct}} \]

Step 2: Examining Statement II regarding the Ninth Schedule.
Statement II says: ``Laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 remain open to scrutiny.'' The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951. Its purpose was:

• To protect certain laws from judicial review.

• Particularly land reform laws and agrarian legislation.
For many years it was believed that once a law was placed in the Ninth Schedule, courts could not examine it. However, in the landmark I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that:

• Laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment)

• Can still be reviewed by courts

• If they violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Therefore, immunity under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute. Hence, \[ \boxed{\text{Statement II is Correct}} \]

Step 3: Examining Statement III regarding Parliament's amending power.
Statement III says: ``Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is unlimited.'' This statement is contrary to the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case clearly held that:

• Parliament possesses wide powers to amend the Constitution.

• But those powers are not unlimited.

• Parliament cannot alter, destroy, or damage the basic structure.
For example, Parliament cannot abolish:

• Democracy

• Judicial Review

• Federalism

• Secularism

• Rule of Law
Thus Article 368 confers a limited amending power and not an unlimited one. Therefore, \[ \boxed{\text{Statement III is Incorrect}} \]

Step 4: Selecting the correct option.
After evaluation: Statement I = Correct Statement II = Correct Statement III = Incorrect Hence the correct combination is: \[ \boxed{\text{I and II only}} \] Therefore, \[ \boxed{\text{Option (B)}} \]

Answer 2

This question can be answered by testing each of the three statements against one underlying idea: Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is wide, but it is not absolute, and courts retain the ability to check it against the basic structure.

1. Statement I, Judicial review extends to constitutional amendments: if amendments were beyond judicial review, the basic structure doctrine itself would be unenforceable, since there would be no way to strike down an amendment that damages the Constitution's core. Because courts do in fact test amendments against the basic structure, judicial review necessarily extends to them, so this statement is correct.
2. Statement II, Ninth Schedule laws after 24 April 1973 remain open to scrutiny: the Ninth Schedule was meant to shield certain laws from ordinary judicial review, but that shield cannot be allowed to override the basic structure doctrine once that doctrine exists. Since the doctrine was recognized from 24 April 1973 onward, laws added to the Ninth Schedule after that date cannot escape a basic-structure check, making this statement correct.
3. Statement III, Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is unlimited: if this were true, Statements I and II would both be meaningless, because an unlimited power could not be checked by judicial review or limited by a basic-structure test on Ninth Schedule laws. Since the first two statements are grounded in real limits on Parliament's power, this statement, which denies any limit, has to be incorrect.

Testing the three statements together shows that Statements I and II reinforce the same underlying limit on Parliament's power, while Statement III denies that very limit and cannot stand alongside them.

Hence, the correct answer is I and II.