🏛 Legacy IAS · Bengaluru · Prelims 2026
Preamble · Basic Structure
& Constitutional Amendments
Topics 19–21 · Part I Revision Series · Art. 368 · Kesavananda to Minerva Mills · Key CAAs · UPSC Polity High-Yield Notes
3Core Topics
28+PYQs Mapped
30UPSC Traps
🏛Preamble
⚖Basic Structure
📜Art. 368 Amendments
1973Kesavananda Bharati
1980Minerva Mills
42ndMini-Constitution
Preamble to the Constitution
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA
having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a
SOVEREIGN
SOCIALIST 42nd CAA
SECULAR 42nd CAA
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE — Social, Economic and Political
LIBERTY — of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship
EQUALITY — of status and of opportunity
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual
and the unity and integrity 42nd CAA of the Nation
Art. 13 · Art. 368
Is the Preamble Part of the Constitution? The Berubari → Kesavananda Journey
Most foundational question — tested in 2017, 2020, 2021
The Judicial Journey
- Berubari Union Case (1960): SC held — Preamble is NOT a part of the Constitution. It is the key to open the minds of the makers, but is NOT enforceable on its own.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): SC OVERRULED Berubari — the Preamble IS a part of the Constitution. It can be used to interpret ambiguous constitutional provisions.
- Is Preamble independently justiciable? NO — courts cannot enforce the Preamble on its own, but it aids interpretation of other articles.
- Can Preamble be amended? YES — It was amended ONCE by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), which added three words: Socialist, Secular, Integrity.
- Can Preamble be amended to violate Basic Structure? NO — since Preamble is part of the Constitution, any amendment that destroys its basic structure would be struck down.
- Objective Resolution: Drafted and moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946 in the Constituent Assembly — formed the basis of the Preamble.
- India described as: A Union of States in Art. 1, but the Preamble describes it as a Republic — both are correct and not contradictory.
⚠ PYQ Traps on Preamble
- “Preamble is the soul of the Constitution” — this phrase was used by Justice K. Iyer; NOT from the SC majority ruling. Preamble is NOT called ‘soul’ in any authoritative SC judgment.
- ECONOMIC LIBERTY is NOT in the Preamble — Liberty covers: thought, expression, belief, faith, worship ONLY. Candidates confuse this with DPSP (Art. 39).
- FRATERNITY appears in Preamble; EQUALITY = of status and opportunity; LIBERTY = of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship — not “economic” liberty.
- India is described as ‘Democratic Republic’ — NOT ‘Parliamentary Republic’ in the Preamble. The term ‘Parliamentary’ doesn’t appear in the Preamble.
- The Preamble was adopted on 26 November 1949 — same as rest of Constitution. Not 26 January 1950 (that is Constitution Day / Republic Day of commencement).
- Only ONE amendment to the Preamble (42nd CAA 1976) — candidates often assume it was never amended or amended multiple times.
Preamble Word Analysis
SOVEREIGN
Original 1949
India is internally and externally sovereign — no external authority can dictate India’s policies. India is not a dominion. Membership of UN or Commonwealth does NOT affect sovereignty.
SOCIALIST
Added by 42nd CAA 1976
Indian version of socialism — NOT Soviet-style communism. Mixed economy. SC in Excel Wear v UOI (1978): Indian socialism = democratic socialism, not communist variety. Art. 39 reflects it.
SECULAR
Added by 42nd CAA 1976
India has no official state religion. State treats all religions equally. Bommai case: Secularism is part of Basic Structure. SR Bommai v UOI (1994) declared secularism a core feature.
DEMOCRATIC
Original 1949
Representative democracy — elected government accountable to the people. Free and fair elections are part of Basic Structure (Indira Gandhi Election case 1975). Universal adult franchise under Art. 326.
REPUBLIC
Original 1949
Head of State (President) is elected, not hereditary. India replaced the British Crown. President is elected indirectly — by Electoral College (Art. 54). Contrasts with monarchies like UK.
JUSTICE
Original 1949
Social — no discrimination; Economic — equitable distribution (Art. 39); Political — equal political rights. Justice appears in BOTH Preamble AND Directive Principles.
FRATERNITY
Original 1949
Brotherhood among all citizens. Assures dignity of individual AND unity + integrity of Nation. Fraternity is the cementing force. Art. 51A(e) — Fundamental Duty to promote fraternity.
INTEGRITY
Added by 42nd CAA 1976
Added to address secessionist movements. Appears in Preamble AND Art. 19(2) (added by 16th CAA 1963 to Art. 19 restrictions). Part of Basic Structure per SR Bommai case.
📌 What is NOT in the Preamble — Most Tested Traps
- Economic Liberty — NOT there. Liberty = thought, expression, belief, faith, worship ONLY.
- Political Justice alone — Justice is Social + Economic + Political (all three together).
- Equality of income/wealth — NOT there. Equality = of status and of opportunity only.
- Communism / Class struggle — NOT there. India follows democratic socialism, not communist socialism.
- Federal — The word ‘federal’ does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution or Preamble.
- Welfare State — NOT in Preamble. Welfare state concept is found in DPSP (Art. 36–51).
Basic Structure Doctrine
Art. 368 + Doctrine
Origin and Meaning of the Basic Structure Doctrine
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — the most important case in Indian constitutional history
Pre-Kesavananda Position — The Debate
- Shankari Prasad Case (1951): SC held — Parliament can amend ANY part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights under Art. 368. Art. 13 does not apply to Constitutional Amendments.
- Sajjan Singh Case (1964): Affirmed Shankari Prasad — Parliament’s amendment power is plenary and includes FRs.
- Golaknath Case (1967): 11-judge bench REVERSED position — Parliament CANNOT amend FRs. Prospective overruling applied. Constitutional Amendments are ‘law’ under Art. 13.
- 24th CAA 1971: Parliament responded by adding Art. 13(4) and amending Art. 368 to assert UNLIMITED amendment power. Added that Constitutional Amendments are NOT ‘law’ under Art. 13.
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) — The Landmark Ruling
- 13-Judge Bench (7:6): Largest constitutional bench ever assembled in India. Heard for 68 days — longest case at that time.
- Core Holding: Parliament CAN amend ANY provision of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights under Art. 368 — but NO amendment can damage or destroy the BASIC STRUCTURE of the Constitution.
- Golaknath overruled: Art. 13 does NOT apply to Constitutional Amendment Acts — CAAs are not ‘law’ under Art. 13. (So Parliament CAN amend FRs, subject to basic structure.)
- The Compromise: Parliament has wide power to amend; Judiciary retains power to strike down amendments violating basic structure. This is the balance that defines Indian constitutionalism.
- Basic Structure not defined exhaustively: Court deliberately left the list open — it grows case by case. No exhaustive list given.
⚠ Critical Misconceptions on Basic Structure
- The Constitution does NOT define its own basic structure — it is a judge-made doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati. PYQ 2020 directly tested this.
- Art. 13 does NOT apply to Constitutional Amendments — this was settled in Kesavananda. Candidates often confuse post-Golaknath position with final law.
- Parliament cannot ABROGATE basic structure — but CAN MODIFY non-basic-structure provisions freely — the test is whether amendment damages/destroys, not merely changes.
- Basic structure also applies to ordinary legislation indirectly — through challenge to constitutional amendments that enabled such laws (IR Coelho case).
- States cannot challenge basic structure violations — only individuals and courts can raise basic structure challenge in judicial review proceedings.
Elements
Elements of the Basic Structure — As Identified by Courts
Not exhaustive — courts add new elements case by case
Core Elements Identified
01
Supremacy of Constitution — Kesavananda (1973)
02
Parliamentary Democracy — Representative form of government
03
Secularism — SR Bommai (1994); no state religion
04
Federalism — balance between Centre and States
05
Separation of Powers — Legislature, Executive, Judiciary
06
Judicial Review — power of courts to review laws
07
Rule of Law — Dicey’s principle; no arbitrary state action
08
Independence of Judiciary — Judges Transfer case (1982)
09
Free and Fair Elections — Indira Gandhi Election case (1975)
10
Equality Principle — Art. 14, 15, 16
11
Sovereign, Democratic, Republican Nature — from Preamble
12
Unity and Integrity of the Nation — SR Bommai (1994)
13
Limited Power of Amendment — Minerva Mills (1980); cannot be made unlimited
14
Harmony between FRs and DPSPs — Minerva Mills (1980)
15
Right to Life and Personal Liberty — Art. 21; Puttaswamy (2017)
16
Right of dissent / access to justice — emerging elements post-2010
📌 What is NOT Considered Basic Structure
- Right to Property (Art. 300A) — removed from FRs in 1978; NOT basic structure. States can acquire property with legislation.
- Specific DPSPs (like Art. 39b, 39c) — DPSPs themselves are not basic structure, though the harmony between FRs and DPSPs is.
- Anti-Defection Law — not basic structure, held modifiable by Parliament (Kihoto Holohan).
- Article 74 (CoM advising President) — convention-based; not yet declared basic structure.
Key Cases on Basic Structure & Amendments
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala
1973 — 13-judge bench
- Basic Structure doctrine established
- Parliament CAN amend FRs but cannot destroy basic structure
- Golaknath overruled; Art. 13 doesn’t apply to CAAs
- 24th CAA upheld but its unlimited power claim rejected
- PYQ: 2019, 2020 — most tested doctrine case
Minerva Mills v Union of India
1980 — 5-judge bench
- 42nd CAA’s Art. 368(4) and (5) struck down — unlimited amendment power violates basic structure
- Harmony between FRs and DPSPs is basic structure
- Judicial review is basic structure — cannot be excluded
- Limited amending power is itself basic structure
Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain
1975 — Election Case
- 39th CAA (which immunised PM’s election from judicial review) struck down
- Free and fair elections = basic structure
- Rule of law = basic structure
- Democracy = basic structure; can’t be immunised from judicial review
SR Bommai v Union of India
1994 — 9-judge bench
- Secularism is basic structure — Art. 356 cannot be used to dismiss secular state governments
- Federalism is basic structure
- Floor test must be conducted in House — not in Governor’s office
- Judicial review of Art. 356 proclamation is permissible
IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu
2007 — 9-judge bench
- Ninth Schedule laws placed AFTER 24 April 1973 can be tested against basic structure
- No blanket immunity — even Ninth Schedule laws subject to basic structure review
- If law violates Arts. 14, 19, 21 in their core — can be struck down even from Ninth Schedule
- PYQ: 2019, 2021 — Ninth Schedule immunity
Waman Rao v Union of India
1981
- Ninth Schedule laws placed BEFORE 24 April 1973 (Kesavananda date) = full immunity from challenge
- Cut-off date: 24 April 1973 = date of Kesavananda judgment
- Read with IR Coelho: pre-1973 = safe; post-1973 = subject to basic structure review
Kihoto Hollohan v Zachilhu
1992 — Anti-Defection
- Paragraph 7 of 10th Schedule (barring court jurisdiction) is void
- Judicial review cannot be excluded — it is basic structure
- Rest of 10th Schedule upheld as valid
- Speaker’s decision = subject to limited judicial review
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record v UOI (NJAC Case)
2015
- 99th Constitutional Amendment creating NJAC struck down
- Independence of judiciary is basic structure
- Collegium system restored — SC holds primacy in judicial appointments
- PYQ 2022: Judicial independence = basic structure confirmed here
Article 368 — Amendment of the Constitution
Art. 368
Constitutional Amendment — Essential Rules & Procedure
PYQ: 2013, 2022, 2024, 2025 — Direct questions on Art. 368 procedure
Core Procedural Rules
- NO prior recommendation of President required for introduction of a Constitution Amendment Bill (CAB) — unlike Money Bills / Financial Bills. PYQ 2022 trap.
- Can be introduced in EITHER House of Parliament — unlike Money Bills (only Lok Sabha). Both Houses have equal powers on CABs.
- NO joint sitting possible for CABs — both Houses MUST independently pass it. This is a major contrast with ordinary bills (Art. 108). PYQ 2024 trap.
- President MUST give assent — cannot return a CAB for reconsideration. Art. 368(2) says President “shall give his assent.” No pocket veto, no suspensive veto for CABs. PYQ 2022.
- CAB is NOT a ‘law’ under Art. 13 — so it cannot be challenged on ground that it violates FRs (Kesavananda). But it can be challenged for violating basic structure.
- Ratification by State Legislatures: For Type 3 amendments, ratification required by not less than one half of the State Legislatures — by simple majority in each State legislature. No time limit specified for state ratification.
- Art. 368 itself is an entrenched provision: Amending Art. 368 itself requires the Type 3 procedure (special majority + state ratification).
⚠ Highest-Frequency Art. 368 Traps
- TRAP: “President can return a CAB for reconsideration” — FALSE. President MUST give assent to CABs. Art. 368(2) mandates assent — no pocket veto power here.
- TRAP: “Joint sitting can resolve deadlock on CAB” — FALSE. No joint sitting for Constitution Amendment Bills. If one House rejects, the bill lapses.
- TRAP: “State legislatures can initiate a CAB” — FALSE. Only Parliament can initiate. State legislatures only participate in ratification for Type 3 amendments.
- TRAP: “State ratification requires 2/3rd of state legislatures” — FALSE. Not less than HALF (50%+) of state legislatures. And each must pass it by simple majority.
- TRAP: “All constitutional amendments require state ratification” — FALSE. Only Type 3 amendments need state ratification. Type 2 (most amendments) do not.
- TRAP: “The Constitution sets a time limit for state ratification” — FALSE. No time limit is prescribed for state ratification.
Three Types of Constitutional Amendment
Type 1
Simple Majority
(Art. 368 NOT Applicable)
(Art. 368 NOT Applicable)
Simple majority of members present and voting in each House. These are NOT called “Constitutional Amendment Acts” — just ordinary Acts of Parliament even though they change the Constitution.
Examples: Admission of new States (Art. 2 & 3) · Alteration of names / boundaries of states · Creation of new states · Languages in 8th Schedule · Quorum rules · Abolition/creation of Upper House (Vidhan Parishad) in States · Second Schedule (salaries of President, Governor, Judges) · UT legislation provisions
Type 2
Special Majority
(Art. 368 Applies)
(Art. 368 Applies)
2/3rd of members present and voting AND majority of total membership of each House. Both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously. Most constitutional amendments fall here.
Examples: Most Fundamental Rights articles · DPSP articles · Directive Principles · Citizenship · Elections generally · Emergency provisions (most of them) · Amendment to parliamentary procedures (most of Part V)
Type 3
Special Majority + Ratification
by ≥ ½ State Legislatures
by ≥ ½ State Legislatures
Special majority in Parliament AND ratification by not less than half the State Legislatures (each by simple majority). This protects federal features — states have a veto-like role.
Examples: Distribution of legislative powers (Union List, State List, Concurrent List · Art. 246) · Election of President (Art. 54, 55) · Extent of executive power of Union & States · SC and HC — Constitution, jurisdiction, powers · Representation of states in Parliament · Art. 368 itself · Chapter I of Part XI (legislative relations) · 7th Schedule (three Lists) · Art. 1 (name and territory of Union)
📋 Special Majority Calculation — How It Works
- Condition 1: 2/3rd of members Present and Voting — if 400 MPs vote, need 267 votes minimum.
- Condition 2: Majority of Total Membership — for Lok Sabha (543 members), always need at least 272 votes regardless of how many attend.
- Both conditions must be simultaneously satisfied — whichever number is higher controls. Effective quorum requirement built in.
- Abstentions reduce the “present and voting” count — which can actually help the government if many opposition MPs abstain rather than vote No.
Key Constitutional Amendments to Remember
Key CAAs
Most Important Constitutional Amendments for UPSC Prelims
Chronological timeline — each CAA tested repeatedly
1st CAA — 1951
Most significant early FR amendment — Champakam overruled
- Added Art. 31A (saving agrarian reform laws from FR challenge) and Art. 31B (Ninth Schedule)
- Added Art. 15(4) — special provision for backward classes in education (to overcome Champakam Dorairajan case which struck down caste-based reservations)
- Added to Art. 19(2): public order, incitement to offence, friendly relations with foreign states (to overcome Romesh Thapar and Brij Bhushan cases)
- Added the word REASONABLE to make restrictions on Art. 19 non-arbitrary
- PYQ 2023: The 1st Amendment is most widely believed to have overcome judicial interpretation of Fundamental Rights — NOT the 42nd or 44th.
7th CAA — 1956
States Reorganisation — Linguistic States
- Implemented State Reorganisation Act 1956 — reorganised states on linguistic basis
- Abolished Part A, B, C, D states — replaced with States and Union Territories
- Same person can be Governor of two or more states simultaneously introduced here
24th CAA — 1971
Response to Golaknath — Asserting Parliament’s Power
- Added Art. 13(4) — Parliament CAN amend FRs under Art. 368
- Added Art. 368(3) — President’s assent to CABs is mandatory
- Indirectly overruled Golaknath (1967) through legislation
- Later partially upheld but UNLIMITED power rejected in Kesavananda and Minerva Mills
42nd CAA — 1976
The “Mini-Constitution” — Emergency Era — Most Changes at Once
- Added SOCIALIST, SECULAR, INTEGRITY to the Preamble
- Added Fundamental Duties (Art. 51A) — 10 original duties
- Made CoM advice BINDING on President (removed President’s discretion on advice)
- Added Art. 368(4) & (5) — claimed UNLIMITED amendment power and barred courts from reviewing CAAs
- Added DPSPs over FRs in case of conflict (Art. 31C expanded)
- Extended term of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas from 5 to 6 years
- Struck down: Art. 368(4)&(5) struck down by Minerva Mills (1980). Extended terms struck down by 44th CAA. Most changes reversed.
- Added participation of workers in management of industries to DPSP
- PYQ trap: Many provisions of 42nd CAA were later undone — candidates must know what survived vs what was struck down.
44th CAA — 1978
Post-Emergency Restoration — Most Important Rights-Protective Amendment
- Removed Right to Property from Fundamental Rights → moved to Art. 300A (constitutional right, not FR)
- Changed ‘internal disturbance’ to ‘armed rebellion’ in Art. 352 — harder to declare emergency
- Cabinet must recommend emergency in WRITING to President
- Art. 20 and Art. 21 declared permanently unsuspendable even during national emergency
- President can refer CoM advice back once — small discretion restored
- Lok Sabha can revoke emergency by simple majority (1/10th members can demand special session)
- Restored term of LS/State Assemblies to 5 years (42nd CAA had extended to 6 years)
- PYQ: Most student-friendly amendment — undid Emergency excesses of 1975–77
52nd CAA — 1985
Anti-Defection Law — 10th Schedule Added
- Added 10th Schedule — Anti-Defection Law
- Disqualification for voluntarily giving up membership, voting against whip, nominated members joining parties after 6 months
- Exception: Speaker/Chairman resigning from party (convention in UK)
- Presiding Officer decides disqualification — later subjected to limited judicial review (Kihoto Holohan)
61st CAA — 1989
Voting Age Reduced from 21 to 18
- Amended Art. 326 — reduced voting age from 21 to 18 years
- Largest single expansion of franchise in Indian democratic history
73rd & 74th CAA — 1992
Panchayati Raj (11th Schedule) & Urban Local Bodies (12th Schedule)
- 73rd — Added Part IX (Panchayati Raj), 11th Schedule (29 subjects for Panchayats), Art. 243
- 74th — Added Part IX-A (Municipalities), 12th Schedule (18 subjects), Art. 243P
- Mandatory 33% reservation for women in local bodies
- State Finance Commissions and State Election Commissions made mandatory
86th CAA — 2002
Right to Education — Art. 21A Added
- Added Art. 21A — free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 = Fundamental Right
- Added Art. 51A(k) — parent/guardian’s duty to provide educational opportunities to child
- Amended Art. 45 (DPSP) — now covers early childhood care and education for under-6
91st CAA — 2003
Council of Ministers Cap + Anti-Defection Strengthened
- Total Council of Ministers (including PM) shall NOT exceed 15% of the strength of the House of the People/State Assembly
- Minimum 12 ministers — not less than 12 regardless of LS strength
- Replaced ‘split’ exception in 10th Schedule with ‘merger’ — 1/3rd → 2/3rd threshold
97th CAA — 2011
Cooperative Societies — Constitutional Status
- Added Art. 43B (DPSP) — promotion of co-operative societies by State
- Added Art. 19(1)(c) — right to form cooperative societies (added to freedom of association)
- Added Part IX-B — The Co-operative Societies (Arts. 243ZH to 243ZT)
- PYQ Note: SC partially struck down Part IX-B in Rajendra N Shah (2021) as it violated state subjects without state ratification.
101st CAA — 2016
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
- Introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime
- Created GST Council (Art. 279A) — a constitutional body
- Subsumed multiple central and state indirect taxes
- Added concurrent taxing power for Centre and States on supply of goods and services
103rd CAA — 2019
EWS Reservation — Art. 15(6) and Art. 16(6)
- 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment
- Added Art. 15(6) and Art. 16(6)
- Based purely on economic criterion — NOT caste-based
- Upheld by SC in Janhit Abhiyan v UOI (2022) — 3:2 majority (Janhit Abhiyan case)
- EWS reservation is over and above the 50% ceiling — brings total reservation to 60%
105th CAA — 2021
State Power to Identify OBC Lists Restored
- Restored the power of State governments to prepare their own OBC lists for reservations
- Response to SC judgment in Maratha reservation case (Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil, 2021) which held only President/Commission can identify OBCs
- Amended Art. 342A — States can now notify their own OBC lists for state-level reservations
The Ninth Schedule — Immunity & Limits
9th Schedule
Ninth Schedule — Creation, Purpose & Limits of Immunity
IR Coelho Case (2007) — the critical cutoff date is 24 April 1973
Origin and Purpose
- Added by 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951) along with Art. 31B — created as a “protected zone” for laws placed therein.
- Original purpose: To protect land reform and agrarian laws from challenges under Art. 14, 19, and 31 (Right to Property). Courts had struck down zamindari abolition laws.
- Art. 31B: Laws placed in Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged as violating FRs or constitutional provisions — courts “shall not apply” to such laws.
- Scope expanded: Over time, Parliament placed 284+ laws in the Schedule — including election laws, land ceiling laws, reservation laws.
The Immunity Cutoff — IR Coelho (2007)
- Before 24 April 1973 (Kesavananda date): Laws placed in Ninth Schedule have full immunity — cannot be challenged. (Affirmed in Waman Rao, 1981)
- After 24 April 1973: Laws placed in Ninth Schedule CAN be examined against the Basic Structure doctrine — especially if they violate the core of Arts. 14, 19, or 21.
- Test from IR Coelho: Even if a law is in the Ninth Schedule post-1973, if it “abrogates or abridges” FRs that form part of basic structure — it will be void.
- No blanket immunity: Mere inclusion in Ninth Schedule does not immunise post-1973 laws from basic structure review.
⚠ Ninth Schedule Traps — PYQ Tested
- TRAP: “All Ninth Schedule laws are beyond judicial review” — FALSE post-1973. Only pre-Kesavananda laws have full immunity. PYQ 2019, 2021.
- TRAP: “Ninth Schedule was part of original Constitution” — FALSE. Added by 1st Constitutional Amendment 1951.
- TRAP: “Ninth Schedule can protect a law that destroys basic structure” — FALSE. IR Coelho specifically rejected this. Basic structure is supreme over Ninth Schedule.
- TRAP: “The Ninth Schedule only protects land reform laws” — FALSE. Many types of laws — election laws, reservation laws — have been placed there.
Master UPSC Traps — Preamble, Basic Structure & Amendments
⚠ 30 Most Dangerous Traps in Preamble · Basic Structure · Constitutional Amendments
Economic liberty is in the Preamble?
❌ NO — Preamble mentions: thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. Economic liberty is absent. Appears only in DPSP (Art. 39). PYQ 2017.
The Preamble is not part of the Constitution?
❌ WRONG (old position) — Berubari Case (1960) said no. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) overruled it. Preamble IS part of the Constitution. PYQ 2020.
The Preamble can be enforced in courts independently?
❌ NO — Preamble is NOT independently justiciable. It helps interpret ambiguous provisions but courts cannot pass orders based on Preamble alone.
Preamble has been amended twice?
❌ NO — Only ONCE — by 42nd CAA (1976) adding Socialist, Secular, Integrity. No other amendment has touched the Preamble.
The word ‘federal’ appears in the Preamble?
❌ NO — ‘Federal’ does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution including the Preamble. India is a Union of States, not explicitly called a federation.
‘Socialist’ was part of original 1949 Preamble?
❌ NO — Socialist and Secular were added by 42nd CAA 1976 during Emergency. Original Preamble only had Sovereign Democratic Republic.
Constitution defines what ‘basic structure’ means?
❌ NO — The Constitution nowhere defines basic structure. It is entirely a judge-made doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati (1973). PYQ 2020 directly.
Basic Structure list is exhaustive and fixed?
❌ NO — The list is NOT exhaustive. SC deliberately left it open. New elements keep getting added case by case (NJAC 2015 added judicial independence).
Art. 13 applies to Constitutional Amendment Acts?
❌ NO — CAAs are NOT ‘law’ under Art. 13(3). Art. 13 does not apply to amendments made under Art. 368 — settled in Kesavananda (1973).
Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights?
✅ YES — Parliament CAN amend FRs under Art. 368, but cannot destroy basic structure. Golaknath’s position that FRs cannot be amended was overruled in Kesavananda.
President can return a CAB for reconsideration?
❌ NO — President MUST give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill. Art. 368(2) mandates assent. No pocket veto or suspensive veto for CABs. PYQ 2022, 2024.
Joint sitting can be called if one House rejects a CAB?
❌ NO — Joint sitting (Art. 108) is NOT applicable to Constitution Amendment Bills. BOTH Houses must independently pass. If one rejects, the bill lapses. PYQ 2024.
President’s prior recommendation is required to introduce a CAB?
❌ NO — Unlike Money Bills and Financial Bills, no prior Presidential recommendation is needed for a CAB. Can be introduced without President’s recommendation. PYQ 2022.
Type 1 amendments (simple majority) are called ‘Constitutional Amendment Acts’?
❌ NO — Simple majority changes like state boundary alterations are NOT Constitutional Amendment Acts under Art. 368. They are ordinary legislative acts — even if they change the Constitution.
State ratification requires 2/3rd of all State Legislatures?
❌ NO — Ratification required by NOT LESS THAN HALF (50%+) of State Legislatures. Each ratifies by simple majority (not special majority). No time limit prescribed.
All Ninth Schedule laws are immune from judicial review?
❌ NO — Only laws placed BEFORE 24 April 1973 have full immunity. Post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws can be tested against basic structure (IR Coelho 2007). PYQ 2019, 2021.
Ninth Schedule was part of the original Constitution?
❌ NO — Ninth Schedule was added by the 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951) along with Art. 31B to protect land reform laws from fundamental rights challenges.
42nd Amendment’s unlimited amendment power provision survived?
❌ NO — Art. 368(4) and (5) added by 42nd CAA were struck down by Minerva Mills (1980). Limited amending power is itself basic structure. Unlimited power violates basic structure.
SR Bommai only deals with President’s Rule under Art. 356?
❌ NO — SR Bommai (1994) also declared secularism, federalism, unity and integrity as basic structure elements. It is not just an Art. 356 case — it’s a landmark on basic structure too.
44th CAA removed Right to Property from the Constitution entirely?
❌ NO — Right to Property was moved from Part III (FR) to Art. 300A (Constitutional right, not FR). It still exists in the Constitution as a legal right — available to ANY person.
Art. 368 empowers State Legislatures to initiate amendments?
❌ NO — Only Parliament can initiate constitutional amendments. State Legislatures can only RATIFY Type 3 amendments after Parliament has passed them by special majority.
Shankari Prasad Case held FRs cannot be amended?
❌ NO — It’s the opposite. Shankari Prasad (1951) held FRs CAN be amended. Golaknath (1967) reversed this. Kesavananda (1973) further refined it — FRs can be amended but not to destroy basic structure.
Right to strike is protected under Art. 19(1)(c) as freedom of association?
❌ NO — Right to form trade unions/associations (Art. 19(1)(c)) does NOT automatically include right to strike. Right to strike is a statutory right under labour laws, not a Fundamental Right.
Integrity was in the original Preamble?
❌ NO — ‘Integrity’ was added by the 42nd CAA (1976). The original Preamble had ‘Unity of the Nation’ — 42nd CAA changed it to ‘Unity and Integrity of the Nation.’
Adding a language to 8th Schedule requires special majority + state ratification?
❌ NO — Adding/altering 8th Schedule languages requires only SIMPLE MAJORITY — it’s a Type 1 amendment. Does not need special majority or state ratification.
The Constitution defines its own basic structure in a specific article?
❌ NO — Nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase ‘basic structure’ defined or mentioned. It is entirely a judge-created doctrine — built entirely through judicial interpretation.
97th Amendment adding cooperative societies applied to all states?
❌ NO — SC in Rajendra N Shah (2021) struck down Part IX-B relating to multi-state cooperatives as it was a state subject and required state ratification but didn’t get it.
Preamble was drafted by BR Ambedkar?
❌ NO — The Objective Resolution (basis of Preamble) was moved by JAWAHARLAL NEHRU on 13 December 1946. Ambedkar is credited for drafting the Constitution itself.
Art. 3 (altering state boundaries) requires Type 2 special majority?
❌ NO — Art. 3 requires only SIMPLE MAJORITY. Creating/altering states is a Type 1 amendment — it is NOT governed by Art. 368. Hence not called a Constitutional Amendment Act.
NJAC Act (99th CAA) was struck down because it violated federal structure?
❌ INCOMPLETE — NJAC was struck down primarily because it violated the INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY — a basic structure element. Federalism was a secondary concern; primary ground was judicial independence.
Memory Tricks & Mnemonics
Words Added by 42nd CAA to Preamble
S — S — I
Preamble — JSLE + F
JELF
3 Types of Amendment
S · SS · SS+R
Kesavananda Chain of Cases
Shankari → Golaknath → Kesavananda
42nd CAA Key Additions
SSIFE + Duties
Ninth Schedule Cutoff Date
24 April 1973
44th CAA — What it RESTORED / FIXED
PAWCAR
Type 3 Amendments — What Needs State Ratification?
PESC + 368
Quick Comparison Reference
Reference
Key Cases — What Each Decided (Quick Table)
Revision table for last-minute recall
| Case | Year | Key Holding | PYQ Years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad | 1951 | Parliament CAN amend FRs under Art. 368 | Background |
| Sajjan Singh | 1964 | Affirmed Shankari Prasad — plenary power to amend FRs | Background |
| Golaknath | 1967 | Parliament CANNOT amend FRs — prospective overruling | Background |
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | CAN amend FRs; CANNOT destroy basic structure; Golaknath overruled | 2019, 2020, 2021 |
| Indira Gandhi Election | 1975 | Free and fair elections = basic structure; Rule of law = basic structure | 2017, 2022 |
| Minerva Mills | 1980 | 42nd CAA Art. 368(4)(5) struck down; limited amendment power = basic structure | 2019, 2021 |
| Waman Rao | 1981 | Pre-24/4/1973 Ninth Schedule laws have full immunity | 2019 |
| SR Bommai | 1994 | Secularism, federalism = basic structure; Art. 356 reviewable | 2017, 2022 |
| IR Coelho | 2007 | Post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws subject to basic structure review | 2019, 2021 |
| NJAC (Advocates on Record) | 2015 | Judicial independence = basic structure; 99th CAA struck down; Collegium restored | 2022, 2024 |
| Janhit Abhiyan v UOI | 2022 | EWS (103rd CAA) upheld — 3:2 majority; over 50% cap permissible in this case | 2023, 2024 |
