40. Which of the following cases for the first time held the Preamble to be part of the Constitution?
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 16 June 2026, Shift 1]
(A) Golaknath Case, 1967
(B) Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973
(C) S.R. Bommai Case, 1994
(D) Berubari Case, 1960
Answer: (B) Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973
Explanation: In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court recognised the Preamble as part of the Constitution, revisiting the earlier Berubari view. Its objectives aid constitutional interpretation. Although the Preamble can be amended, an amendment cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.
39. Which case recognised judicial review as part of the basic structure?
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 14 June 2026, Shift 1]
(A) Maneka Gandhi case
(B) Kesavananda Bharati case
(C) Indra Sawhney case
(D) Minerva Mills case
Answer: (B) Kesavananda Bharati case
Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established limits on constitutional amendment and recognised foundational restraints on state power. Judicial review protects constitutional supremacy by permitting courts to examine legality. Minerva Mills (1980) later reaffirmed judicial review and limited amending power as basic features.
38. In which of the following cases was the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution laid down?
[UP PGT (Civics), 10 May 2026]
(A) The Shah Bano Begum Case
(B) The Puttaswamy Case
(C) The Kesavananda Bharati Case
(D) Minerva Mills Case
Answer: (C) The Kesavananda Bharati Case
Explanation: The Supreme Court formulated the doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala on 24 April 1973. A thirteen-judge bench decided by a 7–6 majority that Parliament could amend constitutional provisions but could not damage or destroy the basic structure.
37. Which of the following 1973 landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India provided that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution through amendments?
[RRB Technician Grade III, 9 March 2026, Shift 1]
(A) Champakam Dorairanjan Case
(B) Minerva Mills Case
(C) Golakhnath Case
(D) Kesavananda Bharati Case
Answer: (D) Kesavananda Bharati Case
Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati resolved a constitutional conflict about the extent of Parliament’s power under Article 368. The Court permitted wide-ranging amendments, including changes to Fundamental Rights, but prohibited changes that would dismantle the Constitution’s essential identity or framework.
36. The rule of law enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution was declared as the basic structure of the Constitution in which case?
[DSSSB TGT (Social Science), 8 November 2025, Shift 2]
(A) Chiranjit Lal vs. Union of India
(B) P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra
(C) Ashok Thakur vs. Union of India
(D) Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
Answer: (D) Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
Explanation: Minerva Mills (1980) reinforced constitutional supremacy, limited amending power and the importance of judicial review. The rule of law prevents arbitrary power, while Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. These principles support constitutional government.
35. The basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India implies that:
[IB ACIO Grade-II (Executive), 17 September 2025, Shift 2]
(A) It limits the powers of the judiciary
(B) It establishes the supremacy of the judiciary over the legislature
(C) It allows unlimited amendments by Parliament
(D) It prevents the legislature from amending the fundamental framework
Answer: (D) It prevents the legislature from amending the fundamental framework
Explanation: The doctrine prevents Parliament from using Article 368 to destroy the Constitution’s defining characteristics. Courts assess whether amendments damage features such as democracy, judicial review and federalism. It does not make the judiciary politically supreme or prohibit every constitutional amendment.
34. Which Indian judgment laid down the concept of Basic Structure of the Constitution?
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 3 September 2025, Shift 1]
(A) Golaknath v. State of Punjab
(B) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
(C) Minerva Mills v. Union of India
(D) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Answer: (B) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Explanation: The Supreme Court first announced the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). Golaknath preceded this judgment and restricted amendments to Fundamental Rights. Minerva Mills subsequently strengthened the doctrine, while Maneka Gandhi significantly developed constitutional protections for personal liberty.
33. In which case did the Supreme Court hold that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution?
[RRB NTPC (UG) CBT-I, 20 August 2025, Shift 3]
(A) Shah Bano case
(B) Shankari Prasad case
(C) Kesavananda Bharati case
(D) Golaknath case
Answer: (C) Kesavananda Bharati case
Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati established that Parliament’s constituent power is limited by the Constitution’s basic structure. Judicial review enables courts to enforce these restrictions and protect constitutional supremacy. Later decisions, especially Minerva Mills and L. Chandra Kumar, reinforced judicial review as an indispensable feature.
32. Which statement is correct in the context of constitutional interpretation and judicial doctrine?
[SSC Stenographer, 7 August 2025, Shift 2]
(A) The Constitution clearly defines basic structure under Article 368
(B) The judiciary rejects spirit-based interpretation and strictly follows the written text
(C) The basic structure doctrine was created by the Supreme Court to protect fundamental constitutional features
(D) Parliament may repeal judicial principles through amendments without limitation
Answer: (C) The basic structure doctrine was created by the Supreme Court to protect fundamental constitutional features
Explanation: The Constitution does not expressly define basic structure. The Supreme Court evolved the doctrine through constitutional interpretation in 1973. It places substantive limits on amendments, preserving essential features without denying Parliament its constitutional power to make permissible changes.
31. The doctrine of basic structure in the context of the Indian Constitution was propounded for the first time in which case?
[MPPSC State Service Prelims, 16 February 2025]
(A) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
(B) Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras
(C) Golaknath v. State of Punjab
(D) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Answer: (D) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) introduced the judicial limitation on amendments affecting the constitutional framework. Shankari Prasad concerned Parliament’s amendment power; Champakam Dorairajan addressed Fundamental Rights and reservations; Golaknath held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, a position subsequently modified.