Evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine

A Judicial Journey: Safeguarding India's Constitutional Identity

Begin Your Exploration

Introduction & Summary

The Doctrine of Basic Structure, a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, was not explicitly present in the original Constitution but evolved through a dynamic and often contentious judicial journey. This journey involved a series of landmark Supreme Court cases that grappled with the scope of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, particularly concerning Fundamental Rights. From an initial phase where Parliament's amending power was seen as virtually unlimited, through a period of asserting the immutability of Fundamental Rights, the judiciary finally arrived at the nuanced position in the Kesavananda Bharati case, establishing that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its "basic structure." Subsequent cases have further clarified, applied, and reinforced this doctrine, making it a powerful tool for preserving the fundamental identity and core values of the Indian Constitution.

(Source: Broad understanding synthesized from Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; D.D. Basu, 'Introduction to the Constitution of India'; M.P. Jain, 'Indian Constitutional Law'; Granville Austin, 'Working a Democratic Constitution')

Core Content: The Judicial Journey

10.2.1: Pre-Kesavananda Phase: Seeds of the Doctrine

This phase was characterized by judicial affirmation of Parliament's broad amending powers, though some dissenting voices began to question this absolute authority.

1951

Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India

Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. It held that a Constitutional Amendment Act is not "law" under Article 13(2) and thus cannot be challenged for violating FRs.

1965

Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan

Ruling: The SC reiterated its stance in Shankari Prasad.

Seeds of Basic Structure (Dissenting Opinions):

  • Justice Mudholkar's Dissent: Questioned whether the term "amendment" in Article 368 meant that Parliament could alter "every basic feature or an essential feature" of the Constitution. He suggested that the Constitution might have certain fundamental features that could not be taken away.
  • Justice Hidayatullah's Dissent: While concurring with the majority on the specific case, he expressed reservations about the unlimited amending power over FRs and suggested that Parliament might need to convene a Constituent Assembly if it wished to abridge FRs.
1967

I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab

Ruling (6:5 majority): The Supreme Court overruled its earlier decisions in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. It held that Fundamental Rights are "transcendental and immutable" and occupy a sacrosanct position. Parliament has no power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendment under Article 368. A Constitutional Amendment Act is a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) and would be void if it violates FRs. Applied prospective overruling to avoid invalidating past amendments.

Significance: This judgment severely restricted Parliament's amending power concerning FRs. While it asserted the primacy of FRs, it did so by interpreting "law" in Article 13(2) to include constitutional amendments, rather than by evolving a doctrine of implied limitations based on "basic features" as Justice Mudholkar had hinted. It set the stage for a major constitutional confrontation between Parliament and the judiciary, leading to the 24th Amendment.

(Source: Landmark SC Judgments; Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity')

10.2.2: The Landmark Enunciation: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)

This case, also known as the Fundamental Rights Case, is where the Doctrine of Basic Structure was formally propounded.

Context of the Case

Challenge to 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments.

  • The 24th Amendment (1971) was enacted to overcome the Golak Nath ruling, affirming Parliament's power to amend FRs and excluding amendments from Article 13.
  • The 25th Amendment (1971) introduced Article 31C, giving primacy to certain DPSPs over FRs.
  • The 29th Amendment (1972) placed certain Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule.

These amendments were challenged in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

The Historic Bench & Key Rulings

Historic 13-judge bench: This was, and remains, the largest bench ever constituted by the Supreme Court of India, reflecting the monumental constitutional questions involved.

Key Rulings (7:6 majority for the Basic Structure doctrine):

  1. Overruled Golak Nath: The Court overruled its decision in the Golak Nath case.
  2. Upheld Validity of 24th Amendment: Affirmed Parliament's power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. A Constitutional Amendment Act is not 'law' under Article 13(2) for the purpose of direct FR challenge.
  3. Propounded the Doctrine of Basic Structure: This was the most crucial and innovative part of the judgment. The Court held that while Parliament's power to amend under Article 368 is wide, it is not unlimited. Parliament cannot alter, damage, or destroy the "basic structure" or "fundamental features" of the Constitution.
  4. Meaning of 'Amend': The Court interpreted the word "amendment" in Article 368 to mean that Parliament can make changes to the Constitution, but these changes must be such that they preserve the original identity of the Constitution. The power to amend does not include the power to abrogate or destroy the Constitution's fundamental framework.

No Exhaustive List of Basic Features Provided

The majority judges did not provide a definitive or exhaustive list of what constitutes the "basic structure." However, various judges in their individual opinions gave illustrative examples of basic features, which included:

  • Supremacy of the Constitution
  • Republican and democratic form of government
  • Secular character of the Constitution
  • Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
  • Federal character of the Constitution
  • Sovereignty and unity of India
  • Dignity of the individual secured by the various Fundamental Rights
  • Mandate to build a welfare state
  • Parliamentary system

(This list has been expanded and clarified in subsequent judgments - See Topic 9.5).

(Source: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461; Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity')

10.2.3: Post-Kesavananda Developments and Application of the Doctrine

The Basic Structure doctrine has been consistently applied and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases, shaping the contours of Parliament's amending power.

Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975)

First Application

This was the first case where the Basic Structure doctrine was practically applied to strike down a constitutional amendment. Struck Down Article 329-A (Clause 4), which placed election disputes involving the Prime Minister and Speaker outside judicial scrutiny. The SC held that Clause (4) violated basic features such as free and fair elections, rule of law, and judicial review.

Parliamentary Counter-Assertion – 42nd Amendment Act, 1976

Enacted during the Emergency, this amendment sought to nullify the Basic Structure doctrine. It amended Article 368 by adding clauses (4) and (5), which declared that no constitutional amendment shall be called in question in any court on any ground, and there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980)

Reaffirmation & Strengthening of Basic Structure

The SC struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 (added by the 42nd Amendment) as unconstitutional. Reasoning: These clauses violated the basic structure by seeking to destroy judicial review and by conferring unlimited amending power on Parliament. The Court held that "limited amending power" of Parliament is itself a basic feature. It also explicitly declared judicial review and the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as basic features.

Waman Rao vs. Union of India (1981)

Prospective Application Clarified

The SC clarified that the Basic Structure doctrine would apply to constitutional amendments enacted on or after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment). This meant that amendments made prior to this date would generally not be subject to the Basic Structure test, providing a degree of finality to earlier constitutional changes.

S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India (1987)

The SC held that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is a basic feature. It stated that while tribunals could be established to adjudicate certain matters (as under Article 323A and 323B), they could only supplement and not supplant the High Courts. The power of judicial review of HCs could not be completely taken away. If tribunals were to substitute HCs, they must possess similar efficacy and independence. (This was further refined in L. Chandra Kumar).

Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) (Anti-Defection Case)

Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law, added by 52nd Amendment) which barred judicial review of the Speaker's/Chairman's decision on disqualification for defection was struck down. Reasoning: It violated the basic feature of judicial review. However, the main body of the Tenth Schedule (providing for disqualification on ground of defection) was upheld as not violating basic structure.

L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997)

The SC held that the power of judicial review of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, forming part of its basic structure. It struck down Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B (added by 42nd Amendment), which excluded the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court under these articles concerning administrative tribunals and other tribunals. Reaffirmed that tribunals can act as courts of first instance, but their decisions would be subject to scrutiny by High Courts (and then SC).

I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) (Ninth Schedule Case)

The SC ruled that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, which infringes Fundamental Rights that form part of the Basic Structure, can be struck down by the courts. It established the "rights test" and the "essence of rights test" to examine such laws. Significance: Extended the Basic Structure doctrine to scrutinize laws that were previously thought to be immune under the Ninth Schedule's protective umbrella.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (2015) (NJAC Case)

The SC struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, as unconstitutional. Reasoning: Held that these violated the basic feature of "independence of the judiciary," particularly the primacy of the judiciary (collegium) in judicial appointments.

(Source: Landmark Supreme Court Judgments; Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; D.D. Basu, 'Introduction to the Constitution of India')

Prelims-ready Notes

Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine:

Pre-Kesavananda:

  • Shankari Prasad (1951) & Sajjan Singh (1965): Parl. can amend FRs. Am. not 'law' under Art 13(2). (Mudholkar J. in Sajjan Singh hinted at unamendable features).
  • Golak Nath (1967): FRs immutable. Parl. cannot amend FRs. Am. is 'law' under Art 13(2).

Kesavananda Bharati (1973) - Landmark Enunciation:

  • Overruled Golak Nath. Upheld 24th Am. (Parl. can amend FRs).
  • BUT, Parl. CANNOT alter "Basic Structure" / "Fundamental Features."
  • 'Amend' implies preserving original identity.
  • No exhaustive list of basic features.

Post-Kesavananda Application & Reaffirmation:

  • Indira Gandhi Case (1975): First application. Struck down Art 329-A(4) (election disputes) - violated free/fair elections, rule of law, judicial review.
  • 42nd Am. (1976): Attempted to nullify Basic Structure (added Cl. 4 & 5 to Art 368 - no limit on amending power, no judicial review of amendments).
  • Minerva Mills (1980): Struck down Art 368(4)&(5). Held "limited amending power" & "judicial review" are basic features. Harmony between FRs & DPSPs also basic.
  • Waman Rao (1981): Basic Structure doctrine applies prospectively (to amendments after April 24, 1973).
  • Kihoto Hollohan (1992): Para 7 of 10th Sch. (barring judicial review of Speaker's defection decision) struck down (violated judicial review - basic feature).
  • L. Chandra Kumar (1997): Judicial review power of HC (226/227) & SC (32) is basic structure.
  • I.R. Coelho (2007): Laws in 9th Sch. (post-Apr 24, 1973) subject to Basic Structure review if they violate FRs forming part of Basic Structure.
  • NJAC Case (2015): 99th Am. & NJAC Act struck down (violated independence of judiciary - basic feature).

Mains-ready Analytical Notes

The Basic Structure Doctrine as a Product of Constitutional Dialogue

The evolution of this doctrine is a classic example of the dynamic dialogue and, at times, confrontation between the Parliament (representing elective will) and the Supreme Court (as guardian of the Constitution).

Parliament sought to assert its power to amend for socio-economic goals, while the SC sought to protect fundamental constitutional values. The doctrine represents a judicially crafted equilibrium.

From Procedural to Substantive Limits on Amending Power

Initially, the debate focused on procedural aspects (is an amendment 'law' under Art 13?).

The Basic Structure doctrine introduced a substantive limitation – regardless of the procedure followed, the content of the amendment cannot destroy the Constitution's fundamental identity. This was a major shift.

Legitimacy and Justification of Judicial Innovation

Arguments for (Justification):

  • Implied limitation in the word "amendment" itself (cannot mean destruction).
  • Protecting the will of the original framers/people who adopted the Constitution with certain core values.
  • Essential for preserving democracy and constitutionalism against potential majoritarian excesses.
  • The Constitution is supreme, not Parliament.

Arguments against (Criticism):

  • "Undemocratic" – unelected judges limiting elected Parliament.
  • "Vague" – lack of precise definition leads to uncertainty.
  • Potential for judicial subjectivity.
Impact of the Doctrine on Constitutional Amendments
  • It has acted as a significant deterrent against radical or arbitrary constitutional changes that could undermine its core principles.
  • It has forced Parliament to be more cautious and to ensure amendments align with fundamental constitutional values.
  • It has also led to a situation where the judiciary has the final say on the validity of constitutional amendments, reinforcing its role as the ultimate interpreter.
The Doctrine's Role in Specific Areas
  • Protecting FRs: Ensures that while FRs can be modified, their essence (e.g., equality, liberty, dignity) is not abrogated.
  • Federalism: Protects the federal character from being destroyed by centralizing amendments.
  • Secularism: Safeguards India's secular identity.
  • Judicial Independence: Crucial for maintaining the separation of powers and rule of law.

Current Affairs and Recent Developments

  • Vice President's Remarks on Basic Structure Doctrine (Early 2023):

    Remarks by the then Vice President questioning the Basic Structure doctrine and emphasizing parliamentary sovereignty, particularly citing the NJAC judgment, brought the doctrine into sharp focus. This shows the enduring nature of the debate about the balance between parliamentary power and judicial review.

  • Supreme Court's Upholding of Article 370 Abrogation (December 2023):

    While the SC upheld the abrogation, the arguments from petitioners extensively invoked Basic Structure principles (like federalism, democracy, consent of states). The Court's reasoning, even in upholding the action, had to navigate these fundamental constitutional tenets. This demonstrates the doctrine's pervasive influence in major constitutional cases.

  • Discussions on "One Nation, One Election":

    The proposals by the High-Level Committee (Ram Nath Kovind Committee) for constitutional amendments to enable simultaneous elections are being analyzed by legal experts for their potential impact on basic features like federalism, parliamentary democracy, and the powers of state legislatures. Any future challenge to such amendments would likely involve Basic Structure arguments.

  • CJI's Reaffirmations:

    Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has, on multiple occasions, publicly reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine as a "North Star" that guides the interpretation and preservation of the Constitution's core values, indicating the judiciary's continued commitment to it.

(Note: The doctrine itself is well-entrenched. Current affairs mostly concern its application to new constitutional amendments or political discourse questioning/defending its legitimacy.)

UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Prelims MCQs

1. The "Basic Structure Doctrine" of the Constitution of India was first enunciated clearly in which case?

2. Which of the following Supreme Court judgments clarified that the Basic Structure doctrine would apply prospectively to constitutional amendments enacted on or after April 24, 1973?

3. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 (related to NJAC) on the ground that it violated which of the following 'basic features' of the Constitution?

Mains Questions

1. Trace the evolution of the Doctrine of Basic Structure. How has it impacted the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution? (UPSC CSE 2019, similar theme)

Direction/Value Points:

  • Introduction: Define Basic Structure.
  • Evolution (Trace through key cases):
    • Seeds in Sajjan Singh (Mudholkar J. dissent).
    • Golak Nath (FRs immutable – set stage for re-look).
    • 24th Amendment (Parliamentary reassertion).
    • Kesavananda Bharati (Birth of doctrine – Parl. can amend but not destroy basic features).
    • Indira Gandhi case (First application).
    • 42nd Amendment (Attempt to nullify).
    • Minerva Mills (Reaffirmation, limited amending power & judicial review as basic features).
    • Waman Rao (Prospective application).
    • I.R. Coelho (Application to 9th Schedule post-1973).
    • NJAC case (Recent application).
  • Impact on Parliament's Amending Power:
    • Imposed substantive limitations (not just procedural).
    • Parliament's power no longer absolute.
    • Established judicial review over constitutional amendments.
    • Ensured core constitutional values are protected.
  • Conclusion: The doctrine has significantly curtailed Parliament's amending power by making it subject to judicial scrutiny against the touchstone of basic features, thereby establishing a balance between parliamentary authority and constitutional supremacy.
2. "The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a testament to the Indian judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution." Discuss the statement, highlighting key judgments where this role was prominent in shaping the doctrine.

Direction/Value Points:

  • Introduction: Affirm the statement – Basic Structure as a judicial creation to guard the Constitution.
  • Judiciary's Role as Guardian:
    • Interpreting "amendment" – not destruction.
    • Evolving the doctrine to meet perceived threats to constitutional identity.
  • Key Judgments Highlighting this Role:
    • Kesavananda Bharati: The foundational act of guardianship by enunciating the doctrine itself, balancing parliamentary power with constitutional fundamentals.
    • Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain: Actively applying the doctrine to strike down an amendment that violated core democratic principles (free/fair elections, rule of law, judicial review) and attempted to place individuals above the law.
    • Minerva Mills vs. Union of India: Defending the doctrine (and judicial review, limited amending power as basic features) against direct legislative attempts (42nd Am.) to oust it and establish parliamentary omnipotence.
    • I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu: Extending the doctrine's protection to ensure the Ninth Schedule couldn't be misused to shield laws violating basic structure.
    • SCAORA vs. UoI (NJAC Case): Protecting independence of judiciary as a basic feature against a constitutional amendment.
  • How these judgments show the judiciary acting to preserve core constitutional values.
  • Conclusion: Through the evolution and consistent application of the Basic Structure doctrine in landmark cases, the Indian judiciary has profoundly demonstrated its role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that its fundamental identity and core democratic principles remain inviolable, even by Parliament's constituent power.
3. Critically evaluate the statement that the Basic Structure Doctrine has led to "judicial overreach" and undermined the democratic will represented by Parliament. What are the arguments in defence of this doctrine?

Direction/Value Points:

  • Introduction: Introduce the Basic Structure doctrine and the criticism of judicial overreach.
  • Arguments for "Judicial Overreach" / Undermining Democratic Will:
    • Unelected judges striking down amendments by elected Parliament (representing people's will).
    • Lack of explicit textual basis for the doctrine in the Constitution.
    • Vagueness of "basic features" – gives too much subjective power to judges.
    • Potential to hinder socio-economic reforms if amendments are struck down based on judicial interpretation of basic features.
    • "Third chamber" argument – judiciary acting as a third legislative chamber.
  • Arguments in Defence of the Doctrine:
    • Preserving Constitutionalism & Rule of Law: Ensures even amending power is within constitutional limits.
    • Protecting Core Values & Identity: Safeguards democracy, secularism, federalism, FRs' essence from abrogation by temporary majorities.
    • Check on Tyranny of Majority: Prevents a dominant party from dismantling the constitutional edifice.
    • Reflects Implied Limitations: The word "amend" itself implies change within existing framework, not destruction.
    • Ensuring Stability and Longevity of Constitution.
    • Judiciary as guardian of the Constitution, reflecting the original constituent will.
  • Critical Evaluation: Weigh the arguments. Is it an overreach or a necessary check? Has it been used responsibly by the judiciary?
  • Conclusion: While the Basic Structure doctrine has faced criticism for potentially leading to judicial overreach and impinging on parliamentary sovereignty, its proponents argue that it is a vital safeguard for preserving the fundamental identity and core democratic values of the Indian Constitution against arbitrary amendment. The doctrine represents a unique judicial contribution to ensure that constitutional amendments remain within the bounds of constitutionalism, thus protecting the enduring will of the people embodied in the Constitution over the transient will of a legislative majority.

Trend Analysis (Past 10 Years)

Prelims Trends:

  • High frequency of questions on Kesavananda Bharati case and the origin of Basic Structure.
  • Identifying which features are part of basic structure.
  • Knowledge of key cases that applied/reaffirmed the doctrine (Minerva Mills, I.R. Coelho, Indira Gandhi case, NJAC case).
  • The impact of the doctrine on Parliament's amending power and its non-exhaustive, evolving nature.

Mains Trends:

  • Evolution, significance, and critical analysis of the Basic Structure doctrine are very common and crucial themes.
  • Its impact on parliamentary sovereignty vs. judicial supremacy.
  • The role of the doctrine in protecting core constitutional values.
  • Questions often require tracing the chronological development through landmark cases and discussing the arguments for and against the doctrine.
  • Linking the doctrine to contemporary constitutional debates and amendments.

Original MCQs for Prelims

1. The landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) judgment by the Supreme Court primarily established that:

2. The Supreme Court's decision in Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980) is significant for upholding which of the following as part of the 'Basic Structure'?

  • Limited amending power of Parliament.
  • Judicial Review.
  • The Right to Property as a Fundamental Right.
  • Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

Original Descriptive Questions for Mains

1. "The evolution of the Basic Structure doctrine is a testament to the Indian judiciary's commitment to constitutionalism over parliamentary majoritarianism." Critically analyze this statement, highlighting the key phases of this evolution and its impact on Indian democracy.

Key Points/Structure for Answering:

  • Introduction: Define constitutionalism (limited govt, supremacy of constitution) and parliamentary majoritarianism (will of majority in Parliament).
  • Phases of Evolution & Judicial Commitment:
    • Initial Hesitation/Parliamentary Primacy: Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh.
    • Assertion of FR Sanctity: Golak Nath – judiciary attempting to protect FRs.
    • The Kesavananda Synthesis: The doctrine as a balance – Parliament can amend, but core values (constitutionalism) protected by judiciary.
    • Defending the Doctrine: Indira Gandhi case, Minerva Mills – judiciary actively striking down amendments that sought to establish parliamentary omnipotence or undermine core democratic principles.
    • Expanding the Shield: I.R. Coelho, NJAC case – applying doctrine to new areas (9th Schedule, judicial appointments).
  • Impact on Indian Democracy:
    • Strengthened: Protected democratic institutions, rule of law, FRs.
    • Ensured Stability: Prevented radical overhaul of constitutional identity.
    • Criticism: Arguments of judicial overreach vs. necessary check.
  • Critical Analysis: Weigh whether judiciary's role has been a necessary check for constitutionalism or an undue curb on democratic will.
  • Conclusion: The evolution of the Basic Structure doctrine showcases a profound commitment by the Indian judiciary to uphold constitutionalism, often acting as a crucial counterweight to potential parliamentary majoritarianism. While debates on its democratic legitimacy persist, its role in preserving the fundamental identity and democratic ethos of the Indian Constitution has been undeniably significant.