Which of the following statements are correct in respect of the genesis of the 'Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution'?

(1) This doctrine was first propounded by Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India Case

(2) In Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan Case Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution

(3) In Golaknath Vs the State of Punjab Case Supreme Court ruled that Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not give an absolute power to Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution

(4) In the case of Waman Rao Vs Union of India Supreme Court set aside the basic structure doctrine

The correct answer is 2 and 3.

Key Points

• Statement 1: This doctrine was first propounded by Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India Case – This is incorrect. The Doctrine of Basic Structure was not propounded in the Shankari Prasad case. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
• Statement 2: In Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan Case, Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution – This is correct. In the Sajjan Singh case (1965), the Supreme Court held that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
• Statement 3: In Golaknath Vs the State of Punjab Case, Supreme Court ruled that Art. 368 only lays down the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not give an absolute power to Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution – This is correct. In the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights, as Article 368 only lays down the procedure and not the absolute power to amend.
• Statement 4: In the case of Waman Rao Vs Union of India, Supreme Court set aside the basic structure doctrine – This is incorrect. In the Waman Rao case (1981), the Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine of Basic Structure and also reaffirmed that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Therefore, the correct statements are 2 and 3.

Additional Information

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India: In this 1951 case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: This 1965 case upheld the amendment power of Parliament, affirming that the Constitution could be amended, including Fundamental Rights.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab: This 1967 case ruled that Fundamental Rights could not be abridged or diluted by constitutional amendments, marking a departure from previous judgments.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India: This 1981 case reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine, ensuring that amendments post-April 24, 1973, would be subject to judicial review to protect the Constitution's core principles.