GS Paper II 2019 · Q12
15 marks · 250 words Constitution: evolution, features & basic structure X-Ray · Core #32“Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is a limited power and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power.” In the light of this statement explain whether Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution can destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution by expanding its amending power ?
Approach · directive: “explain whether”
What it asks · Explain, through the case law from Golaknath to Minerva Mills and later, why Article 368 lets Parliament amend widely but not destroy the basic structure, even by enlarging its own amending power.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Explain the nature and limits of Parliament's amending power under Article 368, through the case law from Golaknath to Kesavananda Bharati
- Explain whether Parliament can destroy the basic structure by expanding its own amending power: the 42nd Amendment, Minerva Mills, later cases and the debate
Open with · The statement is the Supreme Court's own holding in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), which struck down clauses (4) and (5) that the 42nd Amendment (1976) had added to Article 368.
Cover
- Article 368(1): a constituent power to amend by addition, variation or repeal; the 24th Amendment (1971) made it explicit after Golaknath (1967).
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973), by 7:6: Parliament may amend any provision but cannot alter the basic structure.
- Raj Narain (1975) applied the doctrine to strike down Article 329A(4).
- 42nd Amendment (1976) added clauses (4)–(5) to Article 368, claiming unlimited power beyond judicial review.
- Minerva Mills (1980): a limited amending power is itself a basic feature; judicial review and the Part III–IV balance are basic.
- Later: Waman Rao (1981) cut-off of 24 April 1973; I.R. Coelho (2007); NJAC (2015) struck down the 99th Amendment.
- Debate: critics see judicial supremacy without textual basis; supporters see a guard against transient majorities.
Close with · No: Parliament may amend any provision, but in Minerva Mills' words a limited amending power is itself a basic feature, so Parliament cannot make that power absolute.
Add value (verified)
- Article 368(1) frames the amending power as a constituent power exercisable by addition, variation or repeal of any provision, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the article.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 368(1) - Legislative Department ↗“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.”
- Minerva Mills (1980) held that Parliament cannot use its limited amending power to enlarge that power into an absolute one, and that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution.Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), Supreme Court judgment - Indian Kanoon ↗“Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of Indian Constitution”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2019, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 332words · Minimalist IAS
The statement is the Supreme Court's own holding in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), which struck down clauses (4) and (5) that the 42nd Amendment (1976) had added to Article 368. The answer to the question is therefore no, and the case law shows why.
Article 368: a wide but limited amending power
- Constituent power: Article 368(1) lets Parliament amend ‘by way of addition, variation or repeal’ any provision; the 24th Amendment (1971) made this explicit.
- Golaknath (1967): had placed fundamental rights beyond amendment, provoking that amendment.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): by 7:6 the Court overruled Golaknath, but held that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure: to amend is not to abrogate.
- First application: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) struck down Article 329A(4), which had put the Prime Minister's election beyond the courts.
- 1967: Golaknath
- 1971: 24th Amendment
- 1973: Kesavananda Bharati
- 1976: 42nd Amendment
- 1980: Minerva Mills
Can Parliament destroy the basic structure by expanding its power?
- The attempt: clauses (4) and (5) declared the amending power unlimited and barred courts from questioning any amendment.
- Minerva Mills' answer: a limited power cannot be used to enlarge itself into an absolute one; removing the limit is itself an attack on the basic structure.
- Basic features named: judicial review and the balance between Parts III and IV, so Parliament cannot immunise its amendments from the courts.
- Reaffirmed since: Waman Rao (1981) fixed 24 April 1973 as the cut-off for Ninth Schedule laws; I.R. Coelho (2007) kept later Ninth Schedule laws open to review; the NJAC judgment (2015) struck down the 99th Amendment.
The debate
- Critics: the doctrine has no textual basis, and judges identify basic features case by case, risking judicial supremacy.
- Supporters: it shields democracy, secularism, federalism and judicial review from transient majorities.
Parliament may amend even fundamental rights, but it cannot free itself from limits. As Minerva Mills held, ‘a limited amending power is one of the basic features of Indian Constitution’: the power to amend is wide, never sovereign.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
