With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements : I. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid. II. 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 ?

Both statements are false, so the answer is D.

Statement I is wrong. High Courts exercise judicial review under Article 226 and can declare a central law unconstitutional, subject to Article 13 and the writ jurisdiction. Their power is not limited to state laws. The Supreme Court has a parallel power under Article 32, and a High Court ruling on a central law can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Statement II is wrong. Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, but in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Supreme Court held that no amendment can damage the basic structure. Minerva Mills (1980) reaffirmed this. So an amendment can be struck down if it violates the basic structure.

Core concept: judicial review and the basic structure doctrine. This links to Polity and to Mains questions on the balance between Parliament and judiciary, such as the NJAC verdict (2015).

Trap: Aspirants read the 'no court can question' wording as absolute finality. Some ouster clauses exist, but they do not shield amendments from basic structure review.