Article 31A, Constitution

57 Constitutional Cases in Brief: Quick Notes

Issue: Can the government choose judges even when the Chief Justice disagrees?

48 min read 16 Oct 2026

57 Landmark Constitutional Cases: Complete Notes

About this topic ▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00) These notes cover the 57 most important cases of Indian Constitutional Law . They are the cases that keep coming up in LL.B. examinations, in judiciary examinations and in every serious discussion of constitutional law. Every case is studied…

411 min read 16 Oct 2026

Constitutional Law II: Complete Notes

Constitutional Law II deals with civil liberties. It is studied in eight units, from the question of who is a citizen of India to how the Constitution enforces the rights it gives. These rights are at work in ordinary life: when a person speaks his mind online, prays in his own way, or is stopped b…

130 min read 16 Oct 2026

In I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court held by six to five that Parliament cannot take away or curtail fundamental rights, because a constitutional amendment is also 'law' under Article 13(2). It overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. To avoid legal chaos, it applied the doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time in India, so the past amendments and the challenged land reform Acts stayed valid.

A unanimous nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati decision) are not fully immune. They can be tested against the basic structure, including the 'golden triangle' of Articles 14, 19 and 21. The case matters because it holds that judicial review is part of the basic structure and that the Ninth Schedule is not a safe haven for unconstitutional laws.

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964. It held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights in Part III, and that a constitutional amendment is not 'law' under Article 13(2). The case matters because the separate opinions of Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar first raised doubts about unlimited amending power, and Justice Mudholkar's idea of 'basic features' is treated as the seed of the basic structure doctrine.

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 13(2) of the Constitution says: the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, and any law that does so is void. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (1951) asked one sharp question: does the word "law" i…

In Waman Rao v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld Articles 31A and 31B and the unamended Article 31C. It held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are safe from the basic structure test, but laws added after that date can be challenged if they damage the basic structure. This cut-off line later shaped I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) and is central to the law on Parliament's amending power.