Question map
Not attempted Correct Incorrect ★ Bookmarked
Loading…
Q81 (IAS/2019) Polity & Governance › Judiciary › Judicial review Official Key

With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements : 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid. 2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Result
Your answer: —  ·  Correct: D
Explanation

The correct answer is option D (Neither 1 nor 2) because both statements are incorrect.

**Statement 1 is incorrect:** The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to interpret the Constitution of the country. They can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the Union level or at the state level, if they find such a law or action is against the Constitution.[1] The Supreme Court or the high courts can declare laws invalid through their power of judicial review.[2] Therefore, High Courts do have jurisdiction to declare central laws constitutionally invalid.

**Statement 2 is incorrect:** In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court declared that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away.[3] The Supreme Court struck down certain constitutional clauses on the ground that they are violative of the "basic features" of the Constitution in the Minerva Mills case.[4] This establishes that constitutional amendments can indeed be challenged and invalidated by the Supreme Court if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Sources
  1. [1] Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: WORKING OF INSTITUTIONS > 4.4 THE JUDICIARY > p. 70
  2. [2] Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 14: Federal System > II ISupremacy of the Constitution > p. 139
  3. [3] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 114
  4. [4] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 354
How others answered
Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.
Community Performance
Out of everyone who attempted this question.
56%
got it right
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full view
Don’t just practise – reverse-engineer the question. This panel shows where this PYQ came from (books / web), how the examiner broke it into hidden statements, and which nearby micro-concepts you were supposed to learn from it. Treat it like an autopsy of the question: what might have triggered it, which exact lines in the book matter, and what linked ideas you should carry forward to future questions.
Q. With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements : 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare…
At a glance
Origin: From standard books Fairness: High fairness Books / CA: 10/10 · 0/10

This is a foundational 'Polity 101' question. It tests the core mechanics of Checks and Balances—specifically Judicial Review and Basic Structure. If you missed this, you aren't struggling with 'tough questions'; you are skimming the basics of NCERT and Laxmikanth.

How this question is built

This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.

Statement 1
Under the Constitution of India, do High Courts have jurisdiction to declare central (Union) laws constitutionally invalid?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: WORKING OF INSTITUTIONS > 4.4 THE JUDICIARY > p. 70
Presence: 5/5
“The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to interpret the Constitution of the country. They can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the Union level or at the state level, if they find such a law or action is against the Constitution. Thus they can determine the Constitutional validity of any legislation or action of the executive in the country, when it is challenged before them. This is known as the judicial review. The Supreme Court of India has also ruled that the core or basic principles of the Constitution cannot be changed by the Parliament.”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states the Supreme Court and the High Courts can interpret the Constitution and declare invalid any law of the legislature or actions of the executive at the Union or State level.
  • Says High Courts can determine the constitutional validity of any legislation when it is challenged — identifying judicial review as the mechanism.
Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 14: Federal System > II ISupremacy of the Constitution > p. 139
Presence: 5/5
“The Constitution is the supreme (or the highest) law of the land. . The laws enacted by the Centre and the states must conform to its provisions. Otherwise, they can be declared invalid by the Supreme Court or the high courts through their power of judicial review. Thus, the organs of the government (legislative, executive and judicial) at both the levels must operate within the jurisdiction prescribed by the Constitution.”
Why this source?
  • Affirms the Constitution's supremacy and that laws enacted by the Centre must conform to it.
  • Directly states that central laws can be declared invalid by the Supreme Court or the high courts through judicial review.
Statement 2
Under the Constitution of India, can the Supreme Court judicially review and declare amendments to the Constitution invalid?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 4: OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION > OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION > p. 46
Presence: 5/5
“On the other hand, the Judiciary has gained ground by itself declaring that 'Judicial review' is a 'basic feature' of OUT Constitution, so that so long as the Supreme Court itself does not revise its opinion in this behalf, any amendment of the Constiwtion to take away judicial review of legislation on the ground of contravention of any provision of the Constitution shall itself be liable to be invalidated by the court. Fundamental Rights IX. The balancing between supremacy of the subject to reasonable Constitution and sovereignly of the Legislature is illustrated by regulation by the novel declaration of Fundamental Rights which our Constitution embodies.”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly asserts that judicial review has been declared a 'basic feature' of the Constitution.
  • States that any constitutional amendment attempting to remove judicial review is liable to be invalidated by the Court.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 114
Presence: 5/5
“2. No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy. In the Kesavanamla Bharati case24 ( 1973), the Supreme Court declared the above second provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away. However, the above first provision of Article 31C was held to be constitutional and valid. Later, the 42nd Amendment Act (1966) extended the scope of the above first provision of Article 31C by including within its protection any law to implement any of the Directive Principles and not merely those specified in Article 39(b) and (c).”
Why this source?
  • Cites Kesavananda Bharati precedent where the Supreme Court invalidated a provision as unconstitutional on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature.
  • Links the Court's basic-structure reasoning to striking down amendment-related provisions.
Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 354
Presence: 5/5
“These two clauses were inserted in Article 368 with a view to preventing the Supreme Court from invalidating any Constitution Amendment Act on the theory of "basic features of Constitution" or anything of that nature. Curiously, however, these clauses have been emasculated by the Supreme Court itself, striking them down on the ground that they are violative of 1:\\10 "basic features" of the Constitution— (a) the limited nature of the amending power under Article 368, and (b) judicial review—in the Minerva Mills case .... Office of Chief Justice and the Right to Information Act, 2005. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court with a 3:2 majority ruled that the Office of Chief Justice of India (CJI) comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.”
Why this source?
  • Explains that clauses were added to Article 368 to prevent the Court from invalidating Amendment Acts, but the Supreme Court struck down those clauses in Minerva Mills.
  • Shows the Court exercising power to invalidate amendment-related provisions that conflicted with the basic structure (including judicial review).
Pattern takeaway: UPSC Polity questions often use 'Extreme Absolutist' statements to test your faith in the Rule of Law. Any statement claiming a constitutional authority has 'unchecked' power or 'total immunity' is almost always false.
How you should have studied
  1. [THE VERDICT]: Absolute Sitter. Directly solvable from NCERT Class IX (Chapter 4) or Laxmikanth (Chapters on Federal System & Judicial Review).
  2. [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The doctrine of **Judicial Review** and its application to both ordinary laws (Article 13) and Constitutional Amendments (Article 368).
  3. [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: (1) 42nd Amendment (1976) actually tried to stop HCs from reviewing Central laws (Art 226A). (2) 43rd Amendment (1977) repealed this and restored the power. (3) *L. Chandra Kumar* case (1997) declared writ jurisdiction of HCs (Art 226) as Basic Structure. (4) *Minerva Mills* (1980) struck down clauses that gave unlimited amending power to Parliament.
  4. [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When reading about any authority (HC, SC, Parliament), always ask: 'What are the LIMITS of this power?' UPSC loves testing the boundary conditions—e.g., can a State HC strike down a Central law? (Yes).
Concept hooks from this question
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Judicial review by High Courts
💡 The insight

High Courts possess judicial review power to interpret the Constitution and to invalidate Union or State laws that violate constitutional provisions.

High-yield for questions on separation of powers, checks and balances and justiciability; links constitutional interpretation to litigation strategy and federal conflicts. Mastery enables answering why and how courts can override legislative acts and comparing High Courts' and Supreme Court's roles.

📚 Reading List :
  • Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: WORKING OF INSTITUTIONS > 4.4 THE JUDICIARY > p. 70
  • Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 14: Federal System > II ISupremacy of the Constitution > p. 139
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, do High Courts have jurisdiction to declare cen..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Supremacy of the Constitution
💡 The insight

All central and state legislation must conform to constitutional provisions and can be struck down if inconsistent with the Constitution.

Core concept for constitutional law, federalism and legislative competence questions; explains the legal basis for judicial review and grounds for striking down statutes. Useful for essay and polity mains questions and for linking to Articles that limit legislative power.

📚 Reading List :
  • Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 14: Federal System > II ISupremacy of the Constitution > p. 139
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 14: Federal System > II ISupremacy of the Constitution > p. 139
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, do High Courts have jurisdiction to declare cen..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 High Courts' jurisdictional framework (Articles 214–231)
💡 The insight

The Constitution defines the organisation, territorial reach, and jurisdictional powers of High Courts, which underpin their authority to hear constitutional challenges.

Helps in answering questions about limits and scope of High Court powers, territorial jurisdiction (including union territories), and interplay with central legislative schemes. Useful for precise answers in prelims and mains on jurisdictional competence.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > 34 ~ CHAPliER > p. 353
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 23: THE HIGH COURT > p. 364
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, do High Courts have jurisdiction to declare cen..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Basic Structure Doctrine
💡 The insight

Judicial review is treated as a core/basic feature that the Parliament cannot abrogate through amendment.

High-yield for constitutional law questions: it explains limits on Parliament's amending power, anchors answers on landmark cases, and connects to debates on separation of powers and fundamental rights. Mastery enables direct answers on whether amendments can be struck down and why.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 4: OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION > OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION > p. 46
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 114
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, can the Supreme Court judicially review and dec..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Limited Amending Power under Article 368
💡 The insight

Article 368's amending power has been held subject to constitutional limitations, preventing amendments that remove judicial review or core principles.

Essential for questions on constitutional amendment: it links procedural/formal amendment power to substantive limits, ties into case law (Minerva Mills, Kesavananda) and to topics on checks and balances between Legislature and Judiciary.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 354
  • Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: WORKING OF INSTITUTIONS > 4.4 THE JUDICIARY > p. 70
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, can the Supreme Court judicially review and dec..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Scope and Grounds of Judicial Review
💡 The insight

Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to examine laws and actions for infringement of fundamental rights, competence limits, or repugnancy to constitutional provisions.

Fundamental for many UPSC questions on constitutional safeguards and judicial powers: knowing the three principal grounds clarifies when courts can strike down laws or amendments and connects to federalism, fundamental rights, and constitutional amendments.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > III Power of Judicial Review > p. 293
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW > p. 298
🔗 Anchor: "Under the Constitution of India, can the Supreme Court judicially review and dec..."
🌑 The Hidden Trap

The 42nd Amendment Act inserted Article 226A to bar High Courts from considering the constitutional validity of Central laws. The 43rd Amendment Act repealed it. A future question might ask specifically about this historical tug-of-war.

⚡ Elimination Cheat Code

Apply the 'Democracy Test'. In a constitutional democracy, no institution is supreme; the Constitution is. Statement 1 ('No High Court...') and Statement 2 ('Cannot be called into question...') both suggest absolute immunity/incapacity. In Indian Polity, absolute statements are 99% false because of Judicial Review.

🔗 Mains Connection

Mains GS-2 (Separation of Powers): Use this question to argue that India follows 'Checks and Balances' rather than strict separation. The Judiciary's ability to strike down even Constitutional Amendments (Basic Structure) is the ultimate check on Legislative tyranny.

✓ Thank you! We'll review this.

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

IAS · 2005 · Q115 Relevance score: 4.40

Consider the following statements: 1. The Parliament cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India as its jurisdiction is limited to that conferred by the Constitution. 2. The officers and servants of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the concerned Chief Justice and the administrative expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Which of the statements is/are correct?

IAS · 2018 · Q5 Relevance score: 3.91

Consider the following statements : 1. The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 2. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

CDS-II · 2021 · Q89 Relevance score: 3.81

Which one of the following is not a correct statement with reference to the Constitution of India ?

IAS · 2021 · Q68 Relevance score: 3.34

With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements : 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India. 2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

IAS · 2023 · Q77 Relevance score: 3.23

Consider the following statements : 1. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances. 2. The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention. 3. According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence. How many of the above statements are correct?