Basic structure of doctorine
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a crucial legal principle that has
shaped the interpretation of India’s Constitution. Emerging from the
landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, this doctrine asserts that there
are fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be altered
by any amendments made by the Parliament. It safeguards the
essential principles and values that reflect the vision of the framers,
ensuring that the core structure of the Constitution remains intact.
Over time, the Basic Structure Doctrine has been reinforced by
significant judgments from the Supreme Court, which have
consistently upheld its importance in protecting the Constitution’s
integrity. Despite its critical role, the doctrine has also faced criticism,
particularly regarding its potential to limit parliamentary sovereignty
and the scope of constitutional amendments.
Basic Structure Doctrine Meaning
The Basic Structure Doctrine, established by the Indian judiciary in
the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, holds that certain fundamental
features of the Indian Constitution cannot be amended by
Parliament, even under Article 368.
While its specific elements evolve, commonly accepted ones include
the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, separation of
powers, judicial review, federalism, and secularism.
This doctrine safeguards against arbitrary amendments, protecting
foundational values and ensuring the Constitution’s stability.
Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine
The Basic Structure Doctrine, introduced in the Kesavananda Bharati
judgment, revolutionized the interpretation of constitutional
amendments. By 1971, 23 amendments raised concerns about
alterations to fundamental provisions. The 24th, 25th, and 29th
Amendments sought to limit judicial review and restrict fundamental
rights. To address these, the Supreme Court upheld the
Constitution’s core integrity, tracing the doctrine’s evolution to
the right to property and the First Constitutional Amendment Act of
1951.
Basic Structure Doctrine Cases
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle in Indian
constitutional law that prevents the Parliament from altering the
fundamental framework of the Constitution. Here are some landmark
cases related to this doctrine:
Shankari Prasad vs Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court upheld
the First Amendment Act, asserting that Parliament could amend the
Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368.
Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965): The Court upheld the
Seventeenth Amendment Act, confirming Parliament’s power to
amend fundamental rights but faced dissent asserting inherent
immutability.
Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967): The Court ruled Parliament
could not amend fundamental rights, declaring constitutional
amendments as “laws” subject to Article 13’s judicial review.
24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971): Parliament restored its
authority to amend any part of the Constitution, overriding
Golaknath’s restrictions, and made presidential assent mandatory.
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973): The Court upheld
Parliament’s amendment power but introduced the basic structure
doctrine, limiting amendments that undermine constitutional
principles.
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975): The Court invalidated the
39th Amendment’s exclusion of election disputes from judicial
review, reinforcing the basic structure doctrine.
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976): Parliament claimed
unlimited amendment powers, barring judicial review, but later
provisions limiting judicial review were invalidated by the Supreme
Court.
Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980): The Court invalidated parts of
the 42nd Amendment, affirming judicial review as integral to the
Constitution’s basic structure.
Waman Rao vs Union of India (1981): The Court upheld the Ninth
Schedule’s protection for pre-1973 laws but subjected post-
Kesavananda Bharati laws to judicial review.
Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992): The Court upheld 27% OBC
reservations, capped total reservations at 50%, and emphasized
equality as part of the basic structure.
Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1993): The Court upheld the Tenth
Schedule on defection but allowed judicial review, adding free
elections and democracy to the basic structure.
S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994): Declared Federalism,
Secularism, and Democracy as the Constitution’s basic structure and
made President’s Rule subject to judicial review.
IR Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Court ruled laws in the
Ninth Schedule are judicially reviewable if they violate the basic
structure or fundamental rights.
Elements of the Basic Structure
The Elements of the Basic Structure Doctrine are fundamental
principles that protect the core of the Constitution, ensuring that its
essence remains intact despite amendments. While Parliament has
the power to amend various parts of the Constitution, including
Fundamental Rights, it cannot alter the ‘basic structure.’ Although
the Supreme Court has not explicitly defined these components,
numerous judgments have identified the following key elements that
form the foundation of the Constitution’s structure.
Secularism
Supremacy of the Constitution
Sovereign, democratic, and republican nature of the Indian polity
Independence of Judiciary
Federalism
Unity and integrity of the nation
Freedom and dignity of the individual
Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142.
Welfare state
Principle of equality
The rule of law
Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
Judicial review
Free and fair elections
Harmony and balance between FR and DPSPs
Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
Separation of powers
Parliamentary system
Principles underlying Fundamental Rights
Significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine in Indian
constitutional law is profound. It has safeguarded fundamental rights,
maintained the balance of power, and ensured that constitutional
amendments do not undermine the core values of democracy,
secularism, and federalism. Through its application, the doctrine has
been crucial in ensuring the following factors:
Promotes Constitutional Ideals: Basic Structure Seeks to preserve
constitutional principles and Basic ideals envisioned by the founding
fathers.
Maintains Supremacy of the Constitution: The doctrine has helped to
maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and has prevented its
destruction by a temporary majority in Parliament.
Separation of powers: Basic Structure strengthens our democracy by
delineating a true separation of power where the Judiciary is
independent of the other two organs.
Granville Austin argues that with Basic Structure Doctrine, a balance
has been reached between the responsibilities of Parliament and the
Supreme Court for protecting the seamless web of the Indian
Constitution.
Protects Fundamental Rights: Basic Structure protects the citizens’
fundamental rights against the legislature’s arbitrariness and
authoritarianism.
Constitution as a living document: Being dynamic in nature, it is more
progressive and open to changes in time, making the Constitution a
living document.
Judicial Activism: It has encouraged judicial activism in India, enabling
the judiciary to strike down amendments that go against the
Constitution’s core and act as a check on the legislature and
executive.
Basic Structure Doctrine Criticism
Although the Basic Structure Doctrine has been widely accepted and
upheld by subsequent court decisions, its application and
interpretation have been criticized on the following grounds:
Inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers: A system of
checks and balances is healthy only when the duties of one branch
are not usurped by another. A court may have the power to review
but not rewrite a constitutional amendment.
Vagueness and elusiveness of the Basic Features of the Constitution:
There is no definite elucidation on what exactly constitutes Basic
Structure, thereby making the doctrine ambiguous.
Translates judiciary into the third decisive chamber of parliament: By
invoking the Basic Structure doctrine, the Judiciary acts as the third
house and thereby renders the work done by the Parliament
meaningless.
Judicial Overreach: Recently, the doctrine has been invoked in cases
regarded as examples of judicial overreach. Ex: National Judicial
Appointment Commission Act, 2014 was declared null and void by
the Supreme Court by relying on this doctrine.
