Magna Carta Prelims 2025 Live Batch
Prelims Concise Notes (PCN) 11 : Basic Structure, FR-DPSP Relationship & Property Rights
Constitutional
Welfarist/
Amendments
Socialist/ Extent to which
Limiting Doctrine of
Land Reforms/ Constitution can
Challenges to Land Basic Structure
Nationalisation be amended
Reforms & Nationalisation
Policies
Policies
(Reference of Key Articles to understand Timeline on next page)
Provision Description
Art 13(2) No ‘law’ can violate FR
Art 13(4) CA are not ‘law’ as per Art 13(4); Added via 24th CA, 1971
Art 19(1)(f) Freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property (removed via 44 CA, 1978)
Art 31(1) No person shall be deprived of his property except by law (removed via 44 CA, 1978)
The State can only acquire property for public purposes and would have to compensate (removed via 44
Art 31(2)
CA, 1978)
Art 31A State acquisition of property not violative of FRs. (added via 1st CA, 1951)
Art 31B Inserted IXth Schedule, Laws under IXth Schedule judicially non reviewable (added via 1st CA, 1951)
Art 31C Laws made to implement Art 39(b) and 39(c) don’t violate Art 14, 19 (added via 25th CA, 1971)
State to make policies towards ensuring equitable distribution of ownership and control of material
Art 39(b)
resources of the community (used for land reforms, bank nationalisation, abolition of privy purses)
State to make policies towards preventing concentration of wealth and means of production (used for
Art 39(c)
land reforms, bank nationalisation, abolition of privy purses)
Art 300A No person shall be deprived of his property except by Law (added via 44th CA, 1978)
Art 368 Power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure for it.
[Link] | contact@[Link] | [Link]
PCN 11 : MCP 2025 : Atish Mathur
THE GRAND TIMELINE
1948 : Madras introduced caste based reservations in Education
Early 1950s : Several states such as Bihar, UP, MP pass agrarian land reform laws restricting ownership
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) : Madras 1948 law struck down, FR > DPSP
Art 15(4) : State can make provisions for SEBC, SC, ST advancement (Champakam nullified)
Art 19(2) : Restrictions relating public order, friendly relations with foreign states and incitement to
an offence added (to counter Romesh Thapar (1951) Art 19 related judgement)
1st CA, 1951
Art 19(6)(ii) : State can fully/partially monopolise any trade, business, industry or service
PM : Nehru Art 31A : Property acquisition by State would not violate Art 14, 19,31
Art 31B : Inserted IXth Schedule, any law inserted in the IXth Sch. could not challenged on grounds
of violation of FRs.
CA are not ‘law’ as per Art 13(2)
2 types of law making powers
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) :
Constituent : To amend CoI under Art 368
Parl has unlimited constituent power to amend anything in CoI
Ordinary : As per Sch VII (Included in ‘law’ as per Art 13(2)
17th CA, 1964 : Added 44 laws to IXth Sch. PM : Shastri
Sajjan Singh v. State of RJ (1965) : Reaffirmed CA not law under Art 13(2) (Contention was that 17th CA reduced HC
powers by disallowing judicial review, and should have been passed using state ratification majority)
FRs have a ‘transcendental’ position in CoI
CA are ‘law’ as per Art 13(2) (overruled Shankari and Sajjan Singh)
Golak Nath v. State of PB (1967) :
Parl cannot amend anything in Part III from now on (Doctrine of prospective
overruling - judgement only applicable for future cases)
Art 13(4) : Art 13 wont apply to CA under Art 368 implying CA are not ‘law’ as per Art 13(2)
(negatived Golak Nath)
Art 368 : Title : from 'Procedure' to 'Power to amend CoI and procedure thereof.’
24th CA, 1971 : Art 368(1): Parl. has constituent power to amend any provision in CoI (negatived Golak Nath)
Art 368(2): Pres. can only give assent to CA Bills, can’t reject/return.
Art 368(3): Art 13 wont apply to CA under Art 368 implying CA are not ‘law’ as per Art 13(2)
(negatived Golak Nath)
RC Cooper v. UoI (1970) : Struck down Bank Nationalisation on grounds of inadequate
compensation and violation of property rights under Art 31 Govt had nationalised
private banks and abolished
25th CA, 1971 : Art 31 : inadequate compensation can’t be challenged in court
privy purses in pursuit of
Art 31C : 39(b)(c) > Art 14,19,31
DPSPs under Art 39(b) and
Laws enacted to implement Art 39(b)(c) can’t be challenged
Art 39(c)
Scindia v. UoI (1971) : Abolition of Privy Purses (assured under Art 291, 362)
26th CA, 1971 : Removed Art 291 and 362, inserted Art 363 A abolishing Privy Purses PM : I. Gandhi from 66-77
29th CA, 1971 : Kerala land reform Acts were added to the IXth Sch
Kesavananda Bharti v. KL (1973) CA not ‘Law’ under Art 13 (Upheld 24th CA, overruled Golak Nath)
Parliament can amend anything subject to Basic Structure (Principles laid
(24th, 25th, 29th CA Challenged)
down by SC from time to time)
Art 31C : 39(b)(c) > Art 14,19,31 BUT judicially reviewable (partially upheld 25th CA)
39th CA, 1975 : Pres, VP, PM, Lok Sabha Speaker elections not judicially reviewable
39th CA, 1975 : Pres, VP, PM, Lok Sabha Speaker elections not judicially reviewable
Struck down 39th CA as judicial review, free/fair elections are basic structure
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) :
First case of application of Basic Structure Doctrine
[Link] | contact@[Link] | [Link]
PCN 11 : MCP 2025 : Atish Mathur
Preamble : added ‘socialist’, ‘secular’, and integrity
(Changes to 54 provisions, hence ‘mini const)
Art 31C : All DPSP > 14,19,31
42nd CA, 1976 : Changes to Art 32,131, 226 limiting judicial review (later undone via 43rd CA, ‘77)
Art 368(4) : CA under Art 368 could not challenged in court
(nullifying Kesavananda Bharti)
Art 368(5) : No limitation on constituent power of Parl to amend CoI
Removed Art 19(1)(f) and Art 31[Art 31(1), 31(2)] as FR to Property, inserted Art 300A, Art 31A-C
44th CA 1978 :
retained, (Constitutional/Legal Right available for all persons subject to certain restrictions)
PM : M. Desai Art 31C : All DPSP > 14,19 (Art 31 removed)
Struck down Art 368(4) and Art 368(5)
Minerva Mills v. UoI (1980)
Art 31 C : (restored to pre 42nd position) : 39(b)(c)>14,19 with Judicial Review
FRs and DPSP must be co-read harmoniously
Laws added to IXth Sch after Kesavananda Bharti case can be challenged on grounds of
Wama Rao v. UoI (1981):
Basic Structure but laws added before Kesavanada can’t be. (Doctrine of prospective
overruling)
Laws added to IXth Sch after Kesavananda Bharti case can be challenged on
IR Ceolho v. State of TN (2007) : Basic Structure
Essential Features
Art 14,15,19,21 specifically as well.
SC AoR Assn. v UoI (2015): (4th Judges Case) : 99th CA (NJAC) struck down;Independence of Judiciary is Basic Structure
Madras Bar Association v. UoI (2015) : Not just CA under Art 368, Ordinary laws also can’t violate Basic Structure.
Anjum Qadri v. UoI (2024) (UP Madrassa): Must be specifically shown as to how ordinary laws violate basic structure.
Art 31C’s position as per Minerva Mills and Kesavananda
Property Owners Association v. State of MH (2024): Bharti is valid.
All kinds and nature of property is not included in ‘material
resources’ as per Art 39(b), can limit Govt acquisition of
Property
Ingredients of Basic Structure (not defined in CoI)
Core Constitutional Principles
Principles Cases
Supremacy of the Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Constitution SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Rule of Law Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1993)
IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Separation of Powers SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Federalism
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Limitations of amending
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
power under Art 368
[Link] | contact@[Link] | [Link]
PCN 11 : MCP 2025 : Atish Mathur
Ingredients of Basic Structure
Rights Related
Principles Cases
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Principles behind Fundamental Rights
IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Secularism SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Sri Adi Vishveshwarya of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of UP (1997)
Balance between FRs and DPSPs Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Concept of social and economic justice, Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
DPSP in toto Bhim Singh JI v. Union of India (1981)
Objectives specified in the Preamble Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Democracy Related Related
Principles Cases
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala
Parliamentary System of Govt
(1973)
Principle of free and fair elections Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu (1993)
Parliamentary Democracy & Multi Party Systems Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)
Judiciary Related
Principles Cases
Independent & Efficient Judicial
Registrar (Admin) v. Sisir Kant Satapathy (1999)
Systems
SC Powers under Art 32, 136, 141, 142 Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991)
Effective Access to Justice Central Coal Fields v. Jaiswal Coal Co. (1980)
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Judicial Review, Art 32, Art 226/227 Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
SP Sampat Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Independence of Judiciary SC AoR Assn. v. Union of India (1994)(2015)
[Link] | contact@[Link] | [Link]