Question

Legal Principle: The doctrine of basic structure in Constitutional jurisprudence means that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be taken away through amendments by the Parliament.
The power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure and it helps the constitutional Courts to determine whether an amendment is against the basic structure or not.
Fact Situation: Parliament proposes an amendment to limit the power of appeal against conviction for the offence of Sedition, to be exercised only by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

• A. The proposed amendment is against the doctrine of basic structure.
• B. The proposed amendment is unconnected to the doctrine of basic structure.
• C. The proposed amendment can be reviewed and struck down by the Constitutional Courts.
• D. The proposed amendment is beyond the power of the Parliament.

Hint:

Always check whether the fact situation affects \textbf{basic structure elements} like judicial review, democracy, secularism, or rule of law.
If it does, the amendment is subject to judicial review even if passed by Parliament.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the legal principle
The doctrine of basic structure was established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
It means that certain features of the Constitution — such as judicial review, rule of law, separation of powers, and federalism — cannot be abrogated by Parliament through constitutional amendments.
Step 2: Applying the facts
In this case, Parliament proposes to restrict the appellate jurisdiction for sedition cases so that only the Supreme Court can hear them.
This impacts the power of judicial review by potentially excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226, which is considered part of the basic structure.
Step 3: Role of Constitutional Courts
If an amendment affects or restricts judicial review — a basic structure element — the Constitutional Courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) have the authority to examine the amendment and strike it down if found violative.
Step 4: Eliminating incorrect options
- Option (1) might be true, but the most precise legal outcome here is that the Constitutional Courts can review and, if necessary, strike it down.
- Option (2) is incorrect because the amendment directly affects judicial review.
- Option (4) is inaccurate — Parliament has amending power but is limited by the basic structure doctrine.
Step 5: Conclusion
The correct conclusion is that the proposed amendment can be judicially reviewed and potentially struck down for violating the basic structure.
\[ \boxed{\text{The proposed amendment can be reviewed and struck down by the Constitutional Courts.}} \]