Question

In 1973, the Supreme Court held that the "Fundamental Rights can be amended but the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be destroyed".

Identify the case.

• A. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab
• B. Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
• C. Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras
• D. Umed Ram Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Hint:

The 1973 basic structure judgment is named after a seer from Kerala.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question quotes a famous Supreme Court ruling of 1973. The court said Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, but it cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. We must name the case in which this was decided.

Step 2: Recall the doctrine:
This idea is called the Basic Structure Doctrine. It was laid down by a thirteen judge bench in 1973. The bench ruled on the limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

Step 3: Check option 1:
Golaknath vs. State of Punjab was decided in 1967. There the court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights at all. This is a stricter view than the quoted statement and it was later overruled. So option 1 is wrong.

Step 4: Check option 2:
Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala was decided in April 1973. It gave the basic structure doctrine and allowed amendment of Fundamental Rights without damaging the basic structure. This matches the quote exactly. So option 2 is right.

Step 5: Check option 3:
Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras was decided in 1950. It is a press freedom case about a ban on a magazine, and it held that freedom of speech includes freedom of circulation. It has nothing to do with the amending power. So option 3 is wrong.

Step 6: Check option 4:
Umed Ram Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh is not the case linked with the basic structure doctrine. So option 4 is wrong.

Final Answer:
The case is Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, which is option 2. \[ \boxed{2} \]