Question

In which case the doctrine of severability was extended by the Supreme Court to constitutional amendments?

• A. A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras
• B. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
• C. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
• D. Kihota Hollahan v. Zachilhu

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The Correct Option is (D):Kihota Hollahan v. Zachilhu

Answer 2

The question asks which case extended the doctrine of severability, ordinarily applied to ordinary statutes, to a constitutional amendment. Let's check each case.

1. A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras: This 1950 case dealt with preventive detention and the scope of Article 21 and personal liberty. It is not about severability of a constitutional amendment.
2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab: This case held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights and introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling, but it is not the case associated with applying severability to a constitutional amendment.
3. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: This case is famous for the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament's amending power, but severability of an amendment is not the specific doctrine it is known for.
4. Kihota Hollahan v. Zachilhu: In this 1992 case on the Tenth Schedule and anti-defection law, the Supreme Court held that Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule, which excluded judicial review, was invalid because it required ratification by the States under the proviso to Article 368(2) which had not been done, but the rest of the Tenth Schedule inserted by the 52nd Amendment was valid and could be severed from the invalid part. This applied the severability doctrine directly to a constitutional amendment.

Only Kihota Hollohon actually applies severability to sever a valid part of a constitutional amendment from an invalid part.

The correct answer is Kihota Hollahan v. Zachilhu.