Jurisprudential Evolution of Amendment Limitations

The second and third statements are accurate. Golaknath ruled amendments are 'laws' (and thus can't violate FRs). Minerva Mills ruled that Parliament's limited power is a basic feature. The first statement is historically false; the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) famously *invented* the Basic Structure doctrine but explicitly refused to define or codify an exhaustive list of what it contains, leaving it open for future case-by-case interpretation.

The Assertion is true; Parliament cannot grant itself unlimited power. Reason 1 correctly supports this by citing the exact Minerva Mills ruling (limited amending power is basic structure). Reason 2 is completely legally false; Kesavananda Bharati deliberately avoided creating a rigidly finalized list, leaving the doctrine flexible and open-ended.

The second application is correct. To strike down a law claiming 'unlimited amending power', the lawyer must cite the Minerva Mills case (1980). This case explicitly ruled that the 'limited amending power of the Parliament' is a core component of the basic structure doctrine. Therefore, Parliament cannot use its limited power to grant itself unlimited power. (Golaknath was essentially overruled by the 24th Amendment and Kesavananda).

Only two milestones are valid (Statement 1: Golaknath ruling on Art 13/368, and Statement 3: Minerva Mills ruling on limited amending power). Statement 2 is false (Kesavananda did not generate an exhaustive/closed definition). Statement 4 is false (Kesavananda explicitly *prohibited* the abrogation of the core identity/basic structure).