Constitution Amendment (Part-II)

The Supreme Court of India examined the concept of the "Basic structure" of the constitution for the first time in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala in 1973. Significantly, the Supreme Court reversed its decision in the Golak Nath case in this instance. It declared that Parliament has the authority to restrict or eliminate any of the Fundamental Rights and confirmed the legality of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act. It also established a new theory regarding the "basic structure" or "basic features" of the Constitution. It decided that Parliament could not change the "basic structure" of the Constitution using its constituent power under Article 368. This implies that a Fundamental Right that is a component of the Constitution's "basic structure" cannot be restricted or eliminated by the Parliament.

The Supreme Court of India examined the concept of the "Basic structure" of the constitution for the first time in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala in 1973. Significantly, the Supreme Court reversed its decision in the Golak Nath case in this instance. It declared that Parliament has the authority to restrict or eliminate any of the Fundamental Rights and confirmed the legality of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act. It also established a new theory regarding the "basic structure" or "basic features" of the Constitution. It decided that Parliament could not change the "basic structure" of the Constitution using its constituent power under Article 368. This implies that a Fundamental Right that is a component of the Constitution's "basic structure" cannot be restricted or eliminated by the Parliament.

The Supreme Court of India examined the concept of the "Basic structure" of the constitution for the first time in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala in 1973. Significantly, the Supreme Court reversed its decision in the Golak Nath case in this instance. It declared that Parliament has the authority to restrict or eliminate any of the Fundamental Rights and confirmed the legality of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act. It also established a new theory regarding the "basic structure" or "basic features" of the Constitution. It decided that Parliament could not change the "basic structure" of the Constitution using its constituent power under Article 368. This implies that a Fundamental Right that is a component of the Constitution's "basic structure" cannot be restricted or eliminated by the Parliament.

The Supreme Court of India examined the concept of the "Basic structure" of the constitution for the first time in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala in 1973. Significantly, the Supreme Court reversed its decision in the Golak Nath case in this instance. It declared that Parliament has the authority to restrict or eliminate any of the Fundamental Rights and confirmed the legality of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act. It also established a new theory regarding the "basic structure" or "basic features" of the Constitution. It decided that Parliament could not change the "basic structure" of the Constitution using its constituent power under Article 368. This implies that a Fundamental Right that is a component of the Constitution's "basic structure" cannot be restricted or eliminated by the Parliament.

The basic structure theory of the Constitution of India implies that certain features of the Constitution are so essential to it that they cannot be abrogated. The Supreme Court made it clear in its judgment in the case of Keshavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala, 1973 that there are certain basic features of the Constitution which cannot be amended in any case.

25th Amendment of the Constitution, 1971 provided that no law passed to give effect to Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Articles 39(b) and (c) shall be void on the ground that it abridges the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 or 31 (Article 31- was repealed by 44 Amendments Act-1978).

Directive Principles of State Policy were given preference over Fundamental rights mentioned in Article14, 19 and 31 through 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. Although the Supreme Court in it's verdict in Minerva Mills case termed it unconstitutional, nevertheless it held that fundamental rights mentioned in Articles 14 and 19 have been subjected to Directive Principles enshrined in Articles 39(b) and 39(c).

Sikkim was included as a full-fledged state (22nd) in the first schedule to the Constitution of India by 36th Constitutional Amendment. 35th constitutional amendment sought to provide for the terms and conditions of association of Sikkim with the Union.

By 36th Amendment of the Constitution, 1975, Sikkim became an integral part of India. This region is blessed with biodiversity and considered as the Paradise of Botanists because it comes under the Himalayan hotspot. Natives of this region are Lepchas, Bhutias, and the Nepalis.

A Memorandum of Settlement on Mizoram was signed by the Government of India and the Government of Mizoram on 30th June, 1986. Mizoram was granted the status of a State by 53rd Amendment Act, and formation of Mizoram took place on 20 February, 1987.