The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a judicial principle in Indian constitutional law that ensures certain fundamental features of the Constitution remain unaltered, even by parliamentary amendments. This doctrine maintains the Constitution’s core principles, safeguarding its integrity against potential legislative overreach.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

The Doctrine of Basic Structure posits that while Parliament holds the authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy its essential features. This ensures the Constitution’s foundational principles remain intact, preserving its original spirit. The Supreme Court introduced this doctrine in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, establishing that amendments should not distort the Constitution’s basic structure.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The evolution of this doctrine is marked by several pivotal cases:

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368.

• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): The Court reaffirmed its stance from Shankari Prasad, allowing amendments to Fundamental Rights.

• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): Reversing its earlier position, the Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, granting them a “transcendental position.”

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark judgment introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental framework.

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court applied the doctrine to strike down clauses of the 39th Amendment, which sought to place the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny.

• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Court reaffirmed the doctrine, invalidating sections of the 42nd Amendment that granted unlimited amending power to Parliament, emphasizing that such power cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

ESSENTIALS / ELEMENTS / PRE-REQUISITES

While the Supreme Court has not exhaustively defined the basic structure, it has identified several key elements:

• Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution stands as the ultimate legal authority.
• Republican and Democratic Form of Government: India’s governance is based on democratic principles.
• Secular Character of the Constitution: The state maintains neutrality in religious matters.
• Separation of Powers: Distinct functions and powers are allocated to the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary.
• Federal Character of the Constitution: A clear division of powers exists between the central and state governments.
• Unity and Integrity of the Nation: The nation’s indivisibility is paramount.
• Sovereignty of India: India’s independence and self-governance are fundamental.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. However, the Basic Structure Doctrine imposes implicit limitations on this power, ensuring that amendments do not alter the Constitution’s fundamental framework. This judicially crafted doctrine serves as a safeguard against potential misuse of the amending power, maintaining the Constitution’s core principles.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to acquire the Mutt’s property under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Following the 1971 general elections, Raj Narain challenged Indira Gandhi’s election, alleging electoral malpractices. During the proceedings, the 39th Amendment was enacted, placing the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court struck down this provision, applying the Basic Structure Doctrine to uphold the principle of free and fair elections.

• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): Minerva Mills challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of the 42nd Amendment, which sought to give precedence to the Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court held that the amendment violated the Basic Structure by distorting the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, thus reaffirming the doctrine.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial innovation that emerged to protect the core principles of the Constitution from arbitrary amendments. This doctrine, developed by the Indian judiciary, establishes certain principles as immutable, forming the bedrock of the Constitution.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

The doctrine embodies the principle of constitutional supremacy, ensuring that the Constitution’s core values are preserved against potential legislative encroachments. It upholds the idea that while the Constitution is a living document, its foundational principles must remain inviolable.

AMENDMENTS / ADDITIONS / REPEALING

The 42nd Amendment attempted to curtail judicial review and expand Parliament’s amending power, challenging the Basic Structure Doctrine. However, the Supreme Court, in the Minerva Mills case, struck down these provisions, reinforcing the doctrine’s authority.

CRITICISM / APPRECIATION

The Basic Structure Doctrine has been both lauded and criticized:

• Appreciation: It acts as a safeguard against potential misuse of parliamentary power, ensuring that amendments do not alter the Constitution’s fundamental essence. This doctrine upholds the supremacy of the Constitution and maintains the balance between flexibility and rigidity, allowing controlled changes.