Basic structure doctrine has prevented the Parliament, a creature of the constitution, from becoming the master of the constitution. Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws.

Basic structure doctrine has been acknowledged in practice as fundamental in constitution. While securing brute majority in legislature does not give parliament the power to turn into tyranny of the deme. Relevant Case Laws: a Evolution: under the Keshavananda Bharati case 1973 and backed by series of 24th/25th Amendment as well as stand days also (Golaknath case - No power to amend Constitution with parliament (while the opposite Shankari Prasad case which said parliament can amend anything). Ideas: of judicial scrutiny, federalism, developed in Keshv

Application: (1) Protection of judicial review and making it as omnipotent in Indrajit Malls case (2) SR Bommai Case: laid down norms for voting of article 352 (President rule) and various judgements as per KSD (3) NTAT Judgement 2016: which turned down the 99th Constitutional Amendment on the federalism of strong judicial independence. BSD even though invoked for judicial supremacy and upholding of liberties, has been a 'north star' (CTI by Khareshwad) ensuring 'constitutional supremacy'