Article 368, 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.

In this 1960 advisory opinion on a Presidential reference under Article 143(1), the Supreme Court held that dividing Berubari Union and exchanging enclaves under the Nehru-Noon Agreement was a cession of Indian territory. Such a cession cannot be done by an executive agreement or by an ordinary law under Article 3. It needs a constitutional amendment under Article 368 that amends Article 1 and the First Schedule by special majority. The case matters because it fixed the constitutional route for giving away territory, which was later followed in the Ninth Amendment (1960) and the Hundredth Amendment (2015).

First, let us understand the basic meaning. The Basic Structure Doctrine is a rule created by the Supreme Court of India which says: Parliament can amend (change) almost any part of the Constitution, but it cannot change the parts that form the Constitution's core identity — its "basic structure."…

In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the anti-defection law in the Tenth Schedule. It struck down only Paragraph 7, which barred courts completely, because that change needed ratification by the States and had not received it. The Court held that the Speaker acts as a tribunal when deciding disqualification, so the decision is open to limited judicial review. The case saved the anti-defection law and also made sure the Speaker's power is not absolute.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Article 75(1) of the Constitution does not contain any implied bar against appointing a person facing criminal charges as a minister. Until there is a conviction, the courts cannot add such a disqualification, because that is Parliament's job. However, the Court expressed a strong constitutional expectation that the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers will not appoint people facing charges of heinous crimes or corruption. The case matters because it shows judicial restraint, the idea of constitutional silence, and the Prime Minister's role as a constitutional trustee.

Minerva Mills (1980) struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the Forty-second Amendment. The Court held that a limited amending power, judicial review, and the balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) are all part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It is the most important basic structure case after Kesavananda Bharati, and it is the source of the famous 'golden triangle' of Articles 14, 19 and 21.

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.