Basic Structure Doctrine of the Indian Constitution
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
-
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a form of judicial review used by the Supreme Court to test the validity of Constitutional amendments.
-
It puts limitations on Parliament's amending power under Article 368.
-
Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy or alter its basic structure.
-
The doctrine is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
-
It was evolved by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
-
In a 7:6 majority judgment, the Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution is inviolable.
Timeline of Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine
| Year | Event/Case | Importance |
|---|
| 1950 | State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh | Land reforms challenged |
| 1951 | First Amendment Act | Added Articles 31A, 31B and Ninth Schedule |
| 1951 | Shankari Prasad Case | Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights |
| 1964 | 17th Amendment Act | More laws added to Ninth Schedule |
| 1967 | Golaknath Case | Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights |
| 1971 | 24th Amendment Act | Restored Parliament's power to amend FRs |
| 1972 | 29th Amendment Act | Kerala Land Reforms Act added to Ninth Schedule |
| 1973 | Kesavananda Bharati Case | Birth of Basic Structure Doctrine |
| 1975 | 39th Amendment Act | PM's election placed beyond judicial review |
| 1975 | Indira Gandhi Case | 39th Amendment partially struck down |
| 1976 | 42nd Amendment Act | Tried to give unlimited amending power |
| 1980 | Minerva Mills Case | Reaffirmed Basic Structure Doctrine |
| 1981 | Waman Rao Case | Doctrine applies after 24 April 1973 |
Background: Land Reforms after Independence
(Implemented under Article 39(b) and 39(c))
Four Components of Land Reforms
-
Abolition of Intermediaries (Zamindari System)
-
Tenancy Reforms
-
Ceiling on Land Holdings
-
Consolidation of Land Holdings
Important Cases and Constitutional Amendments
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1950)
Issue
-
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 challenged.
Supreme Court's Observation
-
Applied the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation.
-
Some provisions of the Act were declared unconstitutional.
Significance
-
Beginning of conflict between: Property rights, and Government's land reform measures.
First Amendment Act, 1951
Major Provisions
| Provision | Description |
|---|
| Article 31A inserted | Protected land reform laws |
| Article 31B inserted | Created Ninth Schedule |
| Ninth Schedule | Laws included in it were protected from judicial review |
Note: Ninth Schedule is often called the "Black Hole of the Constitution".
Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
Issue
Validity of First Amendment Act.
Supreme Court Held
-
Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
-
Constitutional Amendment Acts are not "law" under Article 13.
-
Article 13 applies only to ordinary laws.
Conclusion
Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964
Features
-
Added more land reform laws to Ninth Schedule.
-
Included Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.
Result
Led to the Golaknath Case.
Golaknath Case (1967)
Supreme Court Reversed Earlier Position
Held that:
-
Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable.
-
Constitutional Amendment Act is also a "law" under Article 13.
-
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
Conclusion
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1971
Changes Made
| Article | Change |
|---|
| Article 13 | Constitutional amendments excluded from the meaning of "law" |
| Article 368 | Parliament empowered to amend any part of Constitution including FRs |
Conclusion
Parliament regained power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Twenty-Ninth Amendment Act, 1972
-
Added Kerala Land Reforms Act to Ninth Schedule.
-
Challenged by Swami Kesavananda Bharati.
-
He argued that it violated Article 26 (management of religious property).
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
(Fundamental Rights Case)
Supreme Court Held
- Parliament Can Amend any part of the Constitution.
-
Parliament Cannot Destroy or alter the Basic Structure.
Significance
-
Overruled Golaknath judgment.
-
Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Elements of Basic Structure Identified in Kesavananda Bharati Case
| Elements |
|---|
| Supremacy of Constitution |
| Separation of Powers |
| Republican and Democratic form of Government |
| Secularism |
| Federalism |
| Sovereignty and Unity of India |
| Freedom and Dignity of Individual |
| Welfare State (Socio-economic Justice) |
| Parliamentary System |
39th Amendment Act, 1975
Provision
-
Election disputes of: Prime Minister & Speaker of Lok Sabha were kept outside court jurisdiction.
Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975)
(Election Case)
Supreme Court Held
-
Provision of 39th Amendment invalid.
-
Parliament cannot damage basic structure.
New Elements Added
| Elements Added |
|---|
| Rule of Law |
| Judicial Review |
| Free and Fair Elections |
| Equality of Status and Opportunity |
| Secularism and Freedom of Religion |
42nd Amendment Act (1976)
Attempted To
-
Give unlimited amending power to Parliament.
-
Bar courts from questioning Constitutional amendments.
Minerva Mills Case (1980)
Facts
Nationalisation of textile mills.
Supreme Court Held
New Basic Features Added
| Basic Feature |
|---|
| Limited amending power of Parliament |
| Judicial Review |
| Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs |
Significance
-
Struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment.
-
Reaffirmed Basic Structure Doctrine.
Waman Rao Case (1981)
Supreme Court Held
-
Basic Structure Doctrine applies only to amendments made after: 24 April 1973 (Date of Kesavananda Bharati Judgment)
Evolution of Basic Structure Through Judicial Decisions
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
-
Supremacy of Constitution
-
Separation of Powers
-
Republic and Democratic Government
-
Secularism
-
Federalism
-
Sovereignty and Unity of India
-
Freedom and Dignity of Individual
-
Welfare State
-
Parliamentary System
Indira Gandhi Case (1975)
-
Rule of Law
-
Judicial Review
-
Free and Fair Elections
-
Equality
-
Secularism
-
Democracy
Minerva Mills Case (1980)
-
Limited amending power of Parliament
-
Judicial review
-
Harmony between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs
Other Important Cases
| Case | Basic Feature Recognised |
|---|
| Central Coal Fields Ltd. (1980) | Effective access to justice |
| Bhim Singhji (1981) | Welfare State |
| S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987) | Rule of Law, Judicial Review |
| P. Sambamurthy (1987) | Rule of Law, Judicial Review |
| Delhi Judicial Service Association (1991) | Powers of Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142 |
| Indra Sawhney (1992) | Rule of Law |
| Kumar Padma Prasad (1992) | Independence of Judiciary |
| Kihoto Hollohan (1993) | Free and Fair Elections |
| Raghunath Rao (1993) | Equality and National Integrity |
| S.R. Bommai (1994) | Federalism, Secularism, Democracy, Social Justice |
| L. Chandra Kumar (1997) | Powers of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 |
| Indra Sawhney II (2000) | Equality |
| All India Judges Association (2002) | Independent Judiciary |
| Kuldip Nayar (2006) | Democracy and Free & Fair Elections |
| M. Nagaraj (2006) | Equality |
| I.R. Coelho (2007) | Rule of Law, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review |
| Ram Jethmalani (2011) | Powers of Supreme Court |
| Namit Sharma (2013) | Freedom and Dignity of Individual |
| Madras Bar Association (2014) | Judicial Review and Powers of High Courts |
Major Elements of Basic Structure
| Feature | Source Case |
|---|
| Supremacy of Constitution | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) |
| Separation of Powers | Kesavananda Bharati |
| Secularism | Kesavananda Bharati, S.R. Bommai |
| Federalism | Kesavananda Bharati, S.R. Bommai |
| Parliamentary System | Kesavananda Bharati |
| Rule of Law | Indira Gandhi Case |
| Judicial Review | Indira Gandhi, Minerva Mills |
| Free and Fair Elections | Indira Gandhi Case |
| Harmony between FRs and DPSPs | Minerva Mills |
| Limited Amending Power | Minerva Mills |
| Equality | M. Nagaraj, I.R. Coelho |
| Independence of Judiciary | Kumar Padma Prasad |
Criticism of Basic Structure Doctrine
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's View
-
Basic Structure Doctrine is not mentioned in the Constitution.
-
It is a judicial creation.
-
Judiciary may be encroaching upon Parliament's powers.
Critics' Arguments
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran
-
Unelected judges overriding Constitutional amendments is: Anti-democratic & Counter-majoritarian.
Support for Doctrine
Many scholars and judges support it because it:
-
Protects Constitutional identity.
-
Prevents misuse of Parliament's majority.
-
Preserves democracy and rule of law.
-
Maintains checks and balances.
UPSC Prelims One-Line Revision
| Case | Principle |
|---|
| Shankari Prasad (1951) | Parliament can amend FRs |
| Golaknath (1967) | Parliament cannot amend FRs |
| 24th Amendment (1971) | Parliament regains power |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Birth of Basic Structure Doctrine |
| Indira Gandhi Case (1975) | Free & Fair Elections and Judicial Review |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | Limited Amending Power and FR-DPSP Balance |
| Waman Rao (1981) | Doctrine applies after 24 April 1973 |
| I.R. Coelho (2007) | Ninth Schedule laws subject to Basic Structure test |
PYQ Statement to Remember
"Parliament can amend every provision of the Constitution, but it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution." — Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
