Question

Under the Constitution of India, consider the following statements in the context of constitutional amendments: I. Judicial review extends to constitutional amendments. II. Laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24th April 1973 remain open to scrutiny for violation of the basic structure. III. Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is unlimited. Which of the above statements is/are correct?

• A. I only
• B. I and II
• C. II and III
• D. I, II and III

Hint:

Remember the two most important constitutional law cases: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) → Basic Structure Doctrine. I.R. Coelho (2007) → Ninth Schedule laws inserted after 24 April 1973 can be tested on the touchstone of Basic Structure.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Set up the key question, does Parliament's power under Article 368 have any outer limit that courts can enforce.

Step 2: If the answer is yes, that immediately supports Statement I, because an enforceable limit only means something if courts can review amendments against it.

Step 3: The same limit extends to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, so any such law added after the limit was recognized in 1973 stays open to a basic-structure check, supporting Statement II.

Step 4: Statement III claims there is no limit at all on Parliament's amending power, which is the opposite of what Statements I and II depend on, so Statement III cannot be true if the other two are. Since Statements I and II hold together and Statement III contradicts them, the correct option is I and II.

Answer 2

Instead of testing each statement from scratch, this question can also be solved by checking what each answer choice would require to be true and seeing which one is consistent with how Indian courts actually treat amendments.

1. I only: this would require Statement II to be wrong, meaning Ninth Schedule laws added after 1973 would have to be completely immune from review. Indian courts do not treat the Ninth Schedule as an absolute shield, so this option asks for more immunity than actually exists and fails.
2. I and II: this requires both judicial review of amendments and continued scrutiny of post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws to be real limits on Parliament, which matches how the basic structure doctrine is actually applied.
3. II and III: this requires Statement I to be false, meaning constitutional amendments would have to be beyond judicial review altogether. Since courts do check amendments against the basic structure, this option cannot be right, and it also keeps Statement III, which claims unlimited power, making it doubly inconsistent.
4. I, II and III: this requires all three statements to be true at once, but Statement III's claim of unlimited power directly contradicts the limits described in Statements I and II, so all three cannot hold together.

Only the combination of Statements I and II describes a Parliament whose power is real but bounded, which is consistent with how constitutional amendments are actually treated.

Hence, the correct answer is I and II.