The Supreme Court of India enunciated the doctrine of "Basic Structure of the Constitution" in

The correct answer is B. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench, the largest ever constituted, held by a 7:6 majority that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368 but cannot alter its basic structure. The doctrine is judge-made, not written into the text.

Why the others are wrong:

• A (Golaknath, 1967): The Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights at all. It did not use the basic structure idea.
• C (Shankari Prasad, 1951): Upheld the First Amendment and held that Article 368 covers amendments to Fundamental Rights too.
• D (Sajjan Singh, 1965): Upheld the 17th Amendment and reaffirmed Parliament's wide amending power. Only a dissent by Justice Mudholkar hinted at limits.

Core concept: limits on constitutional amendment power and the role of judicial review. For Mains GS2, connect this to Minerva Mills (1980) and Waman Rao (1981), which reinforced the doctrine.

Trap: candidates pick Golaknath because it is the first case that limited Parliament's power. Remember that the basic structure doctrine was first formally articulated in Kesavananda Bharati.