Arrange the following cases related to basic structure of Constitution in chronological order. I. Minerva Mills Case II. Golak Nath Case III. Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain IV. Kesavanand Bharati Case

Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath case (1967)

• Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.

Supreme Court's judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)

• Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution deals with the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its procedure.
• Parliament may, in the exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose.
• However, the Parliament cannot amend those provisions which form the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Supreme Court's judgement in the Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

• The court declared the impugned clause 4 of Article 329A unconstitutional.
• It was stated by Article 392A that the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker cannot be challenged in any court in the country.
• It can be rather challenged before a committee formed by the Parliament itself.

Supreme Court's judgement in the Minerva Mills case (1980)

• DPSP were once again made subordinate to the FRs.
• But the FRs conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordinate to the DPSP specified in Article 39 (b) and (c).