Which of the following statements about the power to change the basic structure of the Constitution of India is or are correct?

Introduction / Context:
The doctrine of basic structure is a central concept in Indian constitutional law. It arises from landmark Supreme Court judgments which held that while Parliament has wide amending powers under Article 368, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This question tests whether the learner understands how this doctrine limits Parliament and where the theoretical power to change the basic structure would lie, if at all.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement 1: The power to change the basic structure falls outside the scope of the amending powers of Parliament.
• Statement 2: The power to change the basic structure can be exercised by the people through representatives in a Constituent Assembly.
• Statement 3: The power to change the basic structure falls within the constituent powers of Parliament.
• The task is to select the correct combination of statements.

Concept / Approach:
According to the Supreme Court, Parliament under Article 368 has wide powers to amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter its basic structure. This implies that changing the basic structure falls outside Parliament amending power. Many scholars argue that only an original Constituent Assembly representing the people could fundamentally rewrite the constitutional design. Therefore statements that place the power within Parliament amending authority are incorrect. By evaluating each statement against this doctrine, we can identify the correct combination.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine statement 1. The Supreme Court has held that Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy or alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This clearly means that such a power falls outside the scope of the usual amending powers under Article 368. Hence statement 1 is correct. Step 2: Consider statement 2. If Parliament amending power is limited by the basic structure doctrine, the only theoretical body that could completely redesign the constitutional framework would be a fresh Constituent Assembly representing the people in an original constituent capacity. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that a body of representatives specifically mandated as a Constituent Assembly could exercise such a power. Statement 2 is thus treated as correct in this conceptual sense. Step 3: Evaluate statement 3. This statement claims that the power to change the basic structure lies within the constituent powers of Parliament. This contradicts the basic structure doctrine, which explicitly restricts Parliament and says that amendments cannot damage or destroy basic structure. Step 4: Therefore statement 3 must be considered incorrect. Step 5: Since statements 1 and 2 are correct and statement 3 is incorrect, the combination we must choose is 1 and 2.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, one can recall the essence of the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution but could not alter its basic structure. Later cases reinforced this limitation. None of these judgments suggest that Parliament itself can change basic structure. At the same time, constitutional theory recognises a distinction between ordinary constitutional amendments and the original act of constitution making by a Constituent Assembly. Hence the idea that the people in a new Constituent Assembly could change the basic structure is conceptually acceptable, which confirms statements 1 and 2 as correct together.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option A (1 and 3) is wrong because statement 3 contradicts the basic structure doctrine.
• Option C (1 only) ignores the conceptual role of a Constituent Assembly as an original constitution making body.
• Option D (2 and 3) cannot be correct because statement 3 is inconsistent with settled case law.

Common Pitfalls:
Learners sometimes assume that Parliament constituent power under Article 368 is unlimited and that basic structure is just another phrase for a very strong but still amendable rule, which is not accurate. Others may hesitate about the idea of a Constituent Assembly because the Constitution does not currently provide a procedure for calling one. The important point is that the Supreme Court has clearly said Parliament cannot change basic structure, and that if the people wanted to completely replace the Constitution, they would do so as an original constituent power, not through routine amendments.

Final Answer:
1 and 2