2016 · Paper III

Discuss how far the 42nd Amendment which introduced clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 prevents judicial review of Constitutional Amendments.

In short

Clauses (4) and (5), added to Article 368 by the 1976 42nd Amendment, sought to bar courts from questioning amendments, but they did not prevent judicial review. In Minerva Mills (1980) the Supreme Court struck them down, holding judicial review part of the basic structure set out in Kesavananda Bharati.

Model answer

Ghissu Editorial · Verified 4 Oct 2026

Introduction
The 42nd Amendment21 of 1976, enacted during the Emergency, introduced clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 to bar judicial review of constitutional amendments, challenging the constitutional balance between Parliament and judiciary. These provisions aimed to place constitutional amendments beyond judicial scrutiny, raising concerns about unchecked parliamentary power.
Institutional Design and Constitutional Framework
•

Basic Structure Doctrine

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala3 (1973) held that judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, limiting Parliament’s amending power. This doctrine protects essential features like fundamental rights and judicial review itself, preventing Parliament from altering the Constitution’s core framework.

Implementation Challenges and Judicial Outcomes
•

Judicial Reversal of Clauses

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) invalidated clauses (4) and (5), reaffirming judicial review’s indispensability as part of the basic structure. The Court emphasized that Parliament cannot abrogate judicial review, restoring the constitutional balance disrupted by the 42nd Amendment.

•

Judicial Review’s Practical Role

Subsequent rulings like S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) demonstrate judicial review’s continued role in safeguarding constitutionalism. The NJAC case (2015), which struck down the 99th Amendment, underscores that amendments remain subject to judicial scrutiny.

Way Forward
•

Strengthening Institutions

Enhancing judicial independence through transparent appointments and adequate resources, alongside promoting constitutional literacy among legislators and citizens, can prevent future attempts to bypass judicial review.

Conclusion
The 42nd Amendment’s attempt to bar judicial review was overturned, preserving the judiciary’s role as guardian of the Constitution and ensuring that constitutional amendments remain subject to essential judicial scrutiny.

This model answer is indicative and the model can make mistakes; please verify key facts independently.

Hand-drawn diagram: Judicial review survives the 42nd Amendment. Judicial review survives the 42nd Amendment. Diagram (timeline): Judicial review survives the 42nd Amendment; 1973; Kesavananda sets basic structure; 1976; 42nd adds clauses (4), (5); 1980; Minerva Mills strikes them down; 1994; S.R. Bommai reaffirms review
Diagram: Judicial review survives the 42nd Amendment

Practise this question

  1. 1Get the answer sheet

    Sized for this question.

  2. 2Write your answer

    Timed, by hand.

  3. 3Get it marked

    Your score and what to fix.

Share this questionWhatsAppTelegramXLinkedIn

This chapter in the exam

Judiciary: courts, judicial review, activism, independence2 questions

Asked in 2 of 2 sittings since 2016

2016
1
2024
1

Most tested: Judicial independence in the higher judiciary, especially appointment and the scope of judicial review over constitutional change.

Question from the official TGPSC Group-I Mains 2016 paper. Answer written by Ghissu's engine and checked against our editorial standards. Found an error? Tell us and we correct it within 48 hours.

Ghissu

OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·