Important Amendments in Indian Constitution for UPSC

In this article, you’ll get a list of Important amendments in Indian constitution for UPSC exam preparation.

Important amendments in Indian constitution

Constitution provides for its amendment in order to adjust itself to the changing conditions and needs.

Indian Constitution is neither flexible nor rigid but a synthesis of both.

Article 368 in Part XX – deals with the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure.

Article 368 states that “the Parliament may amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose”.

However, the Parliament cannot amend those provisions which form the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution – ruled by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharathi v. State of Kerala (1973) case.

Procedure for Amendment as Laid Down in Article 368 Part XX

  1. Amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a bill in either of the House and not in the state legislatures.
  2. The Bill can be introduced either by a minister or by a private member and doesn’t require prior permission of the President.
  3. The bill must be passed in each House by a Special Majority**
  4. Each House must pass the bill separately. In case of a disagreement between the 2 Houses, there is no provision for holding a joint sitting of the 2 Houses.
  5. If the bill seeks to amend the federal provisions of the Constitution, it must also be ratified by the state legislatures of half of the states by a simple majority#
  6. After duly passed by both Houses and ratified by the state legislatures, the Bill is presented to the President for assent.
  7. The President must give his assent; he can neither withhold his assent to the bill nor return the bill for reconsideration of the Parliament.
  8. After the President’s assent, the Bill becomes an Act (CAA).

Types of Majority

Simple Majority

Simple majority or working majority refers to the majority of more than 50% of the members present and voting.

  • The total strength of Lok Sabha: 545
  • Vacant Seats: 45
  • Members present: 500
  • Members present, but decide to abstain / not to vote: 50
  • Members present and voting: 500-50=450
  • The simple Majority, in this case, would be: 226
  • Most of the normal motions and bills in the house such as No-confidence Motion, motion of Confidence, Motion of Thanks, Censure Motion, Adjournment Motion, Money Bills, Ordinary Bills, etc.

Absolute Majority

The absolute majority refers to the majority of more than 50% of the total strength of the house.

  • The total strength of Lok Sabha: 545
  • Absolute Majority: 273
  • Such kind of majority is not required in isolation in the Indian Parliament. There are instances when such a majority is needed with another majority which would be thus called a special majority.

Effective Majority

Effective Majority of the house means more than 50% of the effective strength of the house. This implies that out of the total strength, we deduct the absent and vacant seats.

  • The total strength of Lok Sabha: 545
  • Vacant Seats: 5
  • Effective Strength: 545-5=540
  • Members present, but decide to abstain / not to vote: 50
  • Members present and voting: 540-50=490
  • Effective Majority: 490/2+1=245+1
  • In the constitution of India, the “all the then members” present indicates an effective
  • majority. In Constitution, effective majorities are needed for removal of VicePresident, Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha Speaker, and Deputy Speaker.

Special Majority

Any Majority other than a simple, absolute, and effective majority is called a special majority. These include

  • Majority by two-third strength of the house {example impeachment of the president under article 61}
  • The majority by two-third of present and voting members {Example Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in the national interest, under article 249}; certain constitution amendment bills, etc.
  • Absolute majority + the majority of two-third present and voting {Example: Removal of Supreme Court Judge, CAG, etc.

Examples of Majorities in the Constitution

Impeachment of President: Special Majority

According to Article 61, When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution; the charge shall be preferred by either House of Parliament. A 14 days’ notice to move a resolution is given. Then, the resolution has to be passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House. This is an example of a Special Majority.

Removal of the Vice-President: Effective Majority

Vice-President may be removed from his office by a resolution of Rajya Sabha passed by a majority of all the then members of the Rajya Sabha and agreed to Lok Sabha. This is an example of an effective majority in Rajya Sabha.

Removal of Deputy chairman Rajya Sabha: Effective Majority

A member holding office as Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council. (Simple Majority in Rajya Sabha)

Removal of Speaker and Lok Sabha Speaker: Effective Majority

Member holding office as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of the People may be removed from his office by a resolution of the House of the People passed by a majority of all the then members of the House.

Removal of Supreme Court Judge: Absolute + Special Majority

A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House (Absolute Majority) and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting (Special Majority) voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity. (Article 124)

Abolition of Council of States: Absolute + Special Majority

Parliament may by law provide for the abolition of the Legislative Council of a State having such a Councilor for the creation of such a Council in a State having no such Council if the Legislative Assembly of the State passes a resolution to that effect by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly (Absolute Majority) and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present and voting. (Special Majority) Article 169 (1).

Removal of Speaker or Deputy Speaker of Assembly: (Effective Majority)

Speaker or Deputy Speaker of Assembly may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly (Effective Majority). Article 179 (C)

Removal of Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Legislative Council: (Effective Majority)

Chairman or Deputy Chairman of a Legislative Council may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Council passed by a majority of all the then members of the Council. (Simple Majority) Article 183 (C)

Emergency Proclamation (Absolute + Special Majority)

According to article 352 (4) an emergency proclamation is laid before each House of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of one month unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. Once approved it shall cease to be in force if again not approved within six months. For both of these purposes, the resolution should be passed by either House of Parliament only by a majority of the total membership of that House (Absolute Majority) and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the Members of that House present and voting. (Special Majority)

Amendment of the Constitution via article 368: (Absolute + Special Majority)

According to Article 368(2), the amendment to Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House (Absolute Majority) and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting, (special Majority).

Further, if the amendment of the constitution also requires the assent of the state assemblies, they can pass the constitutional Amendment Bill with a simple majority.

1. By Simple Majority of the Parliament – outside the scope of Article 368

  1. Admission or establishment of new states.
  2. Formation of new states or alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states.
  3. Abolition or creation of legislative council in states.
  4. 2nd Schedule – emoluments, allowances, privileges, etc. of the President/Governor/Speakers/Judges.
  5. Quorum in Parliament.
  6. Salaries and allowances of MPs.
  7. Rules of procedure in Parliament.
  8. Privileges of the Parliament, its members, and its committees.
  9. Use of English language in Parliament.
  10. Number of puisne judges in SC.
  11. Conferment of more jurisdictions on the SC.
  12. Use of official language.
  13. Citizenship – acquisition, and termination.
  14. Election to the Parliament and State legislatures.
  15. Delimitation of constituencies.
  16. Union Territories.
  17. 5th Schedule – administration of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes.
  18. 6th Schedule – administration of tribal areas.

2. By Special Majority of the Parliament

  1. FRs
  2. DPSPs
  3. All other provision which is not covered under (1) and (3)

3. By Special Majority of the Parliament and the ratification of half of state legislatures

  1. Election of the President and its manner.
  2. Extent of the executive power of the Union and the states.
  3. SCs and HCs.
  4. Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
  5. Any of the lists in the 7th Schedule.
  6. Representation of states in Parliament.
  7. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure (Article 368 itself)

Amendability of Fundamental Rights

The question of whether FRs can be amended by the Parliament under Article 368 came for consideration of the SC:

Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951) Case – the constitutional validity of the 1st Amendment Act (1951) which curtailed the Right to Property was challenged.

SC ruled that – “the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend FRs”

Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (1967) Case – the constitutional validity of the 7th Amendment Act which inserted certain state acts in the 9th Schedule was challenged.

SC ruled that –“FRs are given a transcendental and immutable position and hence the Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of the FRs”.

The Parliament in response to Golak Nath Case enacted the 24th CAA (1971) – declared that “the Parliament can abridge or take away any of the FRs under Article 368”.

Kesavananda Bharathi vs. State of Kerala (1973) case – SC overruled its judgment in the Golak Nath Case(1971) and laid down a new doctrine of ‘basic structure’.

SC upheld the validity of 24th CAA (1971) and stated that — “the Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the FRs under Article 368 but does not enable the Parliament to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution”. i.e. Parliament cannot abridge or take away an FR that forms a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution

The Parliament in response to this judicially innovated doctrine of ‘basic structure’, enacted the 42nd CAA (1976) – amended Article 368 and declared that “there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament and no amendment can be questioned in any court on any ground including the contravention of any FRs”

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – invalidated this provision as it excludes Judicial Review which is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution.

Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) – SC adhered to the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ and further clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (i.e., the Date of judgment in the Kesavananda Bharathi case).

The present position is that the Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution including the FRs but without affecting the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

The following have emerged as ‘basic structures’ from various judgments –

1. Supremacy of the Constitution.
2. Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian Polity.
3. Secular character of the Constitution.
4. Separation of powers between the L, E, and J.
5. Federal character of the Constitution.
6. Unity and integrity of the Nation.
7. Welfare State (socio-economic justice)
8. Judicial Review
9. Harmony and balance between FRs and DPs
10. Parliamentary System
11. Rule of Law
12. Freedom and dignity of the individual
13. The principle of Free and fair elections
14. Principle of Equality, not every feature of equality, but the quintessence of equal justice
15. Independence of Judiciary
16. Effective access to justice
17. Limitations upon the amending power conferred by Article 368
18. Articles 32 and 226
19. Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142

Criticism of the Amendment procedure

  1. No provision of the special body like Constitutional Convention (as in the USA) or Constituent Assembly for amending the Constitution.
  2. The constituent power is vested in the Parliament and only in few cases in the state legislatures (that too very minimal role).
  3. The power to initiate an amendment lies with Parliament (unlike in the USA); the state legislatures cannot initiate amendment bills except in 1 case.
  4. SL can pass a resolution requesting the Parliament to create or abolish legislature councils in the states – here also; the Parliament can either approve or disapprove such a resolution.
  5. A major part of the Constitution can be amended by the Parliament itself and only in few cases it needs the ratification of states.
  6. Constitution does not prescribe the time frame within which the state legislatures should ratify or reject an amendment submitted to them.
  7. Also, it is silent on the issue of whether the states can withdraw their approval after according the same.
  8. No provision of holding Joint Sitting of the Houses.
  9. The process of amendment is similar to that of a legislative process. Except for the special majority, the amendment bills are to be passed by the Parliament in the same way as ordinary bills.
  10. The provisions relating to the amendment procedures are too sketchy. They leave a wide scope for taking the matters to the judiciary.

Important Amendments

Important Amendment ActsNewly added, removed and Amended Articles/Scheduled/PartsDetails of the Amendments
7th Amendment Act 1956Article 1 Article 3 Article 49 Article 80 Article 81 Article 82 Article 131 Article 153 Article 158 Article 168 Article 170 Article 171 Article 216 Article 217 Article 220 Article 222 Article 224 Article 230 Article 231 Article 232 Part VIII First, Second, Fourth and Seventh Schedules of Indian Constitution  Reorganisation of states on linguistic basis Abolition of Class A, B, C and D states Introduction of Union Territories  
9th Amendment Act, 1960Schedule 1 of Indian ConstitutionAdjustments to Indian Territory as a result of an agreement with Pakistan.
10th Amendment Act,  1961Article 240 First ScheduleDadra, Nagar, and Haveli incorporated in the Union of Indian as a Union Territory
12th Amendment Act 1961Article 240 First Schedule  Goa, Daman and Diu incorporated in the Indian Union as a Union Territory
13th Amendment Act, 1963Article 170 Added new article 371ANagaland was formed with special status under Article 371A
14th Amendment Act, 1962Articles 81 and 240 First and fourth Schedules Added Article 239A  Pondicherry incorporated into the Indian Union
21st Amendment Act, 1967Eighth ScheduleSindhi language was language into 8th Schedule of Indian Constitution
26th Amendment Act 1971Article 366 Added Article 363A Removed Articles 291 and 362Privy Purse and privileges of former rulers of princely states were abolished
36th Amendment Act 40th Amendment Act 1975Articles 80 and 81 First and fourth Schedules Added Article 371F Removed Article 2A  Sikkim incorporated as an Indian state
42nd Amendment Act 1976Article 31 Article 31C Article 39 Article 55 Article 74 Article 77 Article 81 Article 82 Article 83 Article 100 Article 102 Article 103 Article 105 Article 118 Article 145 Article 150 Article 166 Article 170 Article 172 Article 189 Article 191 Article 192 Article 194 Article 208 Article 217 Article 225 Article 226 Article 227 Article 228 Article 311 Article 312 Article 330 Article 352 Article 353 Article 356 Article 357 Article 358 Article 359 Article 366 Article 368 Article 371F Seventh Schedule   Added Articles 31D, 32A, 39A, 43A, 48A, 131A, 139A, 144A, 226A, 228A and 257A   Added Parts IVA and XIVA    Fundamental Duties prescribed, India became Socialist Secular Republic
44th Amendment Act 1978Article19 Article 22 Article 30 Article 31A Article 31C Article 38 Article 71 Article 74 Article 77 Article 83 Article 103 Article 105 Article 123 Article 132 Article 133 Article 134 Article 139A Article 150 Article 166 Article 172 Article 192 Article 194 Article 213 Article 217 Article 225 Article 226 Article 227 Article 239B Article 329 Article 352 Article 356 Article 358 Article 359 Article 360 Article 371F   Ninth Schedule   Added Articles 134A and 361A   Deletion of Articles 31, 257A and 329A    Right to Property removed from the list of fundamental rights
52nd Amendment Act, 1985A new tenth Schedule was added providing for the anti-defection laws. 
61st Amendment Act 1989Article 326The voting age decreased from 21 to 18.
65th Amendment Act, 1990Multi-member National Commission for SC/ST  was established and the office of a special officer for SCs and STs was removed. 
71st Amendment Act 1992Article 332Manipuri, Konkani, and Nepali were added in the 8th Schedule of Indian Constitution
73rd Amendment Act 1992Added Part IXIntroduction of Panchayat Raj Addition of Part IX to the Indian Constitution
74th Amendment Act  1992Article 280 Article 280 Added Part IXA  Introduction of Municipalities and Nagarpalikas
86th Amendment Act 2002Amended Articles 45 and 51A Added Article 21AFree and compulsory education to children between 6 and 14 years
87th Amendment Act 2003Eighth ScheduleSanthali, Bodo, Dogri, and Maithili in the 8th Schedule of Indian Constitution Service Tax introduced.
95th Amendment Act 2010Article 334Extension of reservation of seats for SC/ST Nomination of Anglo-Indian members in Parliament and State Assemblies
96th Amendment Act 2011Eighth ScheduleReplaced Odia for Oriya in the 8th Schedule to the Indian Constitution
97th Amendment Act 2012 Articles 19 Added Part IXBIntroduction of Part IXB in the Constitution of India relating to Co-operative Societies
100th Amendment Act 2015Amendment of First ScheduleExchange of some enclave territories with Bangladesh Conferment of citizenship rights to citizens of enclave’s resulting to signing of Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) Treaty between India and Bangladesh.
101st Amendment Act 2016Article 248 Article 249 Article 250 Article 268 Article 269 Article 270 Article 271 Article 286 Article 366 Article 368 Amended Sixth Schedule and Seventh Schedule Deletion of Article 268AIntroduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST)
102nd Amendment Act 2018Addition of articles 338B, 342A, and Added Clause 26C Omitted Article 340 Modification of articles 338, 366Constitutional Status to National Commission for Backward Classes
103rd Amendment Act 2019Amendment to Article 15, Amendment to Article 16A maximum of 10% Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections of citizens of classes other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 15, i.e. Classes other than socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.  
104th Amendment Act, 2020Extended the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and states assemblies from Seventy years to Eighty. Removed the reserved seats for the Anglo-Indian community in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Important Supreme Court Judgments

A.K. Gopalan Case (1950)SC contended that there was no violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22 under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act if the detention was as per the procedure established by law. Here, the SC took a narrow view of Article 21.
Shankari Prasad Case (1951)This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights (the First Amendment’s validity was challenged). The SC contended that the Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
Berubari Union case (1960)This case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of Berubai to Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the Parliament cannot make laws under this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement.
Golaknath case (1967)The questions, in this case, were whether the amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not. SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required. Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)This judgment defined the basic structure of the Constitution. The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.” This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down an amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case (1975)The SC applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the grounds that it was beyond the Parliament’s amending power as it destroyed the Constitution’s basic features.
Maneka Gandhi case (1978)A main issue in this case was whether the right to go abroad is a part of the Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21. The SC held that it is included in the Right to Personal Liberty. The SC also ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be “just, fair and reasonable.”
Minerva Mills case (1980)This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgment struck down 2 changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic structure. The judgment makes it clear that the Constitution, and not the Parliament is supreme.
Waman Rao Case (1981)The SC again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. It also drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date.
Shah Bano Begum case (1985)Milestone case for Muslim women’s fight for rights. The SC upheld the right to alimony for a Muslim woman and said that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion. This set off a political controversy and the government of the day overturned this judgement by passing the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, according to which alimony need be given only during the iddat period (in tune with the Muslim personal law).
MC Mehta and Union Of India (1986)This case dealt with 3 issues: Scope of Article 32; rule of Absolute Liability or Rylands vs Fletcher to be followed; issue of compensation. SC held that its power under Article 32 is not restricted to preventive measures, but also remedial measures when rights are violated. It also held that in the case of industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, Absolute Liability was to be followed. Finally, it also said that the amount of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the industry so that it will be a deterrent.
Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. It upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions (like creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota should not exceed 50%, etc.)
S. R. Bommai case (1994)In this judgment, the SC tried to curb the blatant misuse of Article 356 (regarding the imposition of President’s Rule on states).
Vishaka and State of Rajasthan (1997)This case dealt with sexual harassment in the workplace. In the judgment, the SC gave a set of guidelines for employers – as well as other responsible persons or institutions – to immediately ensure the prevention of sexual harassment. These are called ‘Vishaka Guidelines’. These were to be considered law until appropriate legislation was enacted.
Samatha and State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)This judgement nullified all mining leases granted by the Andhra Pradesh State government in the Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining operations. It declared that forest land, tribal land, and government land in scheduled areas could not be leased to private companies or non-tribal for industrial operations. Such activity is only permissible to a government undertaking and tribal people.
Lily Thomas v Union of India (2000)Here, the SC held that the second marriage of a Hindu man without divorcing the first wife, even if the man had converted to Islam, is void unless the first marriage had been dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act.
I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu 2007This judgement held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court. The 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains a list of acts and laws which cannot be challenged in a court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts and laws mentioned in the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be changed or challenged, but any attempt to amend or add more acts to that schedule will suffer close inspection and examination by the judiciary system.
Pedophilia case (2011)The SC restored the conviction and sentence of 6-year (RI) rigorous imprisonment imposed on 2 UK nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case. The court said that “the sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes.”
Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia with guidelines. The need to reform India’s laws on euthanasia was triggered by the tragic case of Aruna Shanbaug who lay in a vegetative state (blind, paralyzed, and deaf) for 42 years.
NOTA judgement (2013)This judgement introduced the NOTA (None-Of-The-Above) option for Indian voters.
Lily Thomas and Union Of India (2013)The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of 2 year imprisonment would cease to be a member of the House with immediate effect.
Nirbhaya Case (2014)Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, and definition of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973.
National Legal Services Authority and Union of India (2014)This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. The SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education, etc.
Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony.
Right To Privacy (2017)The SC declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under the Indian Constitution. 
Repealing Section 377 (2018)The SC ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional “in so far as it criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex.”
L Chandra Kumar Case (1997)The SC ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts by Articles 32 and 226 respectively is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Sharing is caring!

1 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Get exclusive UPSC Resources that I only share with Telegram subscribers.

Scroll to Top