Introduction: The Doctrine's Foundation
The Doctrine of Basic Structure, first clearly enunciated in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), posits that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution are inviolable and cannot be abrogated by Parliament's amending power under Article 368.
Crucially, the Supreme Court did not provide an exhaustive or closed list of these "basic features." Instead, the components of the basic structure have evolved over time through subsequent judicial pronouncements, with the Court identifying specific principles or features as "basic" in the context of the particular constitutional amendments or laws being challenged.
This evolving, illustrative list underscores the dynamic nature of the doctrine and the judiciary's role in safeguarding the Constitution's core identity.
(Source: Broad understanding synthesized from Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; D.D. Basu, 'Introduction to the Constitution of India'; M.P. Jain, 'Indian Constitutional Law'; Landmark Supreme Court Judgments)
Core Components: An Illustrative List
The following is an illustrative (not exhaustive) list of components that have been identified by the Supreme Court in various judgments as forming part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. Each point highlights a fundamental pillar of Indian constitutionalism.
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all organs of the government derive their authority from it and are bound by its provisions.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
2. Sovereign, Democratic and Republican nature of Indian polity
- Sovereign: India's independence from external control and its supreme authority internally.
- Democratic: Government by the people, accountability, free and fair elections, adult suffrage.
- Republican: Head of State (President) is elected, not hereditary.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973); Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975) (democracy as basic feature).
3. Secular character of the Constitution
The State has no religion of its own and treats all religions equally.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) (by some judges); explicitly held as basic feature in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994).
4. Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
While not a strict separation as in the US, the broad division of functions and checks and balances among the three organs is fundamental.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973); Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975).
5. Federal character of the Constitution
The division of powers between the Union and the States, dual polity, and other federal features.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973); S.R. Bommai case (1994).
6. Unity and integrity of the nation
The indivisibility of the Indian nation and its territorial integrity.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
7. Welfare state (socio-economic justice)
The commitment to building a welfare state that ensures social, economic, and political justice, drawing from the Preamble and Directive Principles.
Identified/Affirmed in: Implied in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973); Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980) emphasized the balance between FRs and DPSPs which aims for this.
8. Judicial review
The power of the higher judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973); explicitly in Minerva Mills case (1980); L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997).
9. Fundamental Rights (certain FRs or the essence/core of FRs)
While individual FRs can be amended, their core essence or certain FRs crucial for human dignity and democratic life cannot be abrogated. The "golden triangle" of Articles 14, 19, and 21 is often seen as central.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973); Minerva Mills case (1980); I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).
10. Parliamentary system
The system of responsible government where the executive is drawn from and accountable to the legislature.
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973); Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975).
11. Rule of law
Governance according to law, absence of arbitrary power, equality before law.
Identified/Affirmed in: Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975); also considered inherent in Kesavananda Bharati.
12. Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance between Part III (FRs) and Part IV (DPSPs). Neither can be given absolute primacy to destroy the other.
Identified/Affirmed in: Minerva Mills case (1980); hinted at in Kesavananda Bharati.
13. Principle of equality
Not just formal equality but also substantive equality; protection against arbitrariness (linked to Article 14).
Identified/Affirmed in: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and subsequent interpretations of Article 14 like E.P. Royappa.
14. Free and fair elections
Essential for democracy, ensuring the government is based on the genuine will of the people.
Identified/Affirmed in: Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975); Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992).
15. Independence of Judiciary
The judiciary must be independent from the legislature and executive to impartially dispense justice and protect the Constitution.
Identified/Affirmed in: S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India (1987); L. Chandra Kumar case (1997); Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (NJAC Case, 2015).
16. Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
The power of Parliament under Article 368 is not absolute or unlimited; it cannot be used to destroy the basic structure. This limited nature of the amending power is itself a basic feature.
Identified/Affirmed in: Minerva Mills case (1980).
17. Effective access to justice
Ensuring that all citizens have meaningful and effective access to the judicial system for redressal of grievances.
Identified/Affirmed in: Implied in L. Chandra Kumar case; more explicitly in cases like Imran vs. Union of India.
18. Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142
These articles grant crucial powers to the Supreme Court (writ jurisdiction, special leave to appeal, binding nature of its law, power to do complete justice). These powers are essential for its role as the apex court and guardian of the Constitution.
Identified/Affirmed in: L. Chandra Kumar case (1997) (for Art 32); Kihoto Hollohan case (for power of judicial review).
19. Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
These articles grant High Courts the power to issue writs and the power of superintendence over subordinate courts, crucial for judicial review and justice administration at the state level.
Identified/Affirmed in: L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997).
20. Dignity of the Individual (secured by FRs and DPSPs)
The overall goal of the Constitution to ensure the dignity of every individual.
Identified/Affirmed in: Implied in Kesavananda Bharati and frequently reiterated in judgments expanding Article 21.
21. Principles underlying Fundamental Rights (as held in I.R. Coelho)
Not just the text of specific FRs, but the underlying principles of equality, liberty, and dignity that form the core of FRs can constitute the basic structure.
Identified/Affirmed in: I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).
(Source: Landmark Supreme Court Judgments as cited; Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; D.D. Basu, 'Introduction to the Constitution of India'; M.P. Jain, 'Indian Constitutional Law')
Note: The list above is a compilation from various judgments. The exact phrasing and emphasis might vary slightly between different judgments and academic interpretations. The key is to understand the type of features considered basic – those that define the fundamental identity and character of the Indian Constitution.
A Journey Through Time: Evolution of the Doctrine
SC held Parliament's power to amend Constitution (Art 368) included Fundamental Rights.
SC reaffirmed the Shankari Prasad ruling, though with a narrow majority and dissenting opinions regarding FRs.
SC reversed its earlier stand, holding that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, which were considered 'transcendental and immutable'.
Parliament's response to Golaknath, seeking to restore its power to amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs.
The landmark verdict propounds the Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but not its 'basic features'.
Applied the Basic Structure doctrine to strike down clause 4 of 39th Amendment, identifying democracy, rule of law, and free & fair elections as basic features.
Struck down parts of 42nd Amendment, holding that harmony between FRs & DPSPs, judicial review, and limited amending power of Parliament are basic features.
Declared secularism and federalism as basic features, influencing the application of Article 356.
Reaffirmed judicial review powers of High Courts (Art 226/227) and Supreme Court (Art 32) as part of basic structure.
Held that laws placed in the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973, are open to judicial review if they violate basic features.
Struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, affirming judicial independence as a basic feature.
Prelims-ready Notes
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament CANNOT alter/destroy "basic features" of Constitution via amendment (Art 368). Evolved by SC.
- Origin: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
- Nature of List: Illustrative, NOT exhaustive. SC can add more features.
- Key Identified Basic Features (Examples with indicative case law):
- Supremacy of Constitution (Kesavananda)
- Sovereign, Democratic, Republican nature (Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi)
- Secular character (Kesavananda, S.R. Bommai)
- Federal character (Kesavananda, S.R. Bommai)
- Separation of Powers (Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi)
- Unity & Integrity of Nation (Kesavananda)
- Parliamentary System (Kesavananda)
- Rule of Law (Indira Gandhi)
- Judicial Review (Kesavananda, Minerva Mills, L. Chandra Kumar)
- Harmony & Balance between FRs & DPSPs (Minerva Mills)
- Principle of Equality (Kesavananda)
- Free & Fair Elections (Indira Gandhi)
- Independence of Judiciary (S.P. Sampath Kumar, NJAC case)
- Limited Amending Power of Parliament (Minerva Mills)
- Powers of SC (Art 32 etc.) & HCs (Art 226/227) (L. Chandra Kumar)
- Welfare State (implied Kesavananda)
- Dignity of Individual (implied Kesavananda)
- Effective Access to Justice
- Principles underlying FRs (I.R. Coelho)
Mains-ready Analytical Notes
Evolutionary Nature of the List – A Judicial Necessity
- The Supreme Court deliberately refrained from providing an exhaustive list in Kesavananda Bharati.
- Reasons: Flexibility for future challenges, avoids rigidity, prevents Parliament from amending around a fixed list.
- Allows the doctrine to remain a "living" principle.
Interconnectedness of Basic Features
- Many features are interconnected (e.g., judicial review for constitutional supremacy & FRs).
- Attack on one feature often impacts others.
Basic Structure as a Reflection of Constitutional Morality
- Reflects underlying principles beyond literal text (democracy, dignity, rule of law).
- Ensures amendments adhere to deeper constitutional morality.
Impact on Certainty and Predictability of Law
- Criticism: Uncodified nature leads to uncertainty for lawmakers.
- Counter: Significant jurisprudence provides reasonable understanding; applied in cases of clear damage to foundational principles.
Uniquely Indian Contribution to Constitutional Law
- Robust and well-developed judicial innovation, influenced other countries.
- A strong concept of implied limitations on amending power.
Current Affairs & Recent Developments
Vice President's Remarks on Basic Structure (Early 2023)
Questioned the doctrine, implicitly challenging judiciary's power, bringing the debate on legitimacy and scope to the fore.
Supreme Court's Article 370 Judgment (December 2023)
Arguments involved claims of violation of basic features like federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, demonstrating doctrine's continued relevance.
"One Nation, One Election" Committee Report (March 2024)
Proposed amendments are being analyzed for potential impact on federalism, parliamentary democracy, accountability. Future challenges would invoke Basic Structure.
Judicial Appointments Debate
Ongoing discourse on collegium system vs. a potential new mechanism for judicial appointments (post-NJAC judgment) continues to involve arguments about the independence of the judiciary as a basic feature.
(Note: New features are rarely added. Current affairs usually involve applying existing features to new laws/amendments or political debates.)
UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Prelims MCQs
- 1. Judicial Review
- 2. Secularism
- 3. Federalism
- 4. Parliamentary Sovereignty
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 1, 2 and 3 only
- (c) 3 and 4 only
- (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: (b)
Hint/Explanation:
Judicial Review, Secularism, and Federalism have been recognized as basic features. Parliamentary Sovereignty in the absolute British sense is NOT a feature of Indian Constitution; India has constitutional supremacy and limited parliamentary power (which itself is a basic feature).
- (a) Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India
- (b) I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab
- (c) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
- (d) Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
Answer: (c)
Hint/Explanation:
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) is the landmark case where the Basic Structure doctrine was propounded.
- 1. Supremacy of the Constitution
- 2. Rule of Law
- 3. Independence of Judiciary
- 4. Directive Principles of State Policy
Which of the above have been held by the Supreme Court to be part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution?
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 1, 2 and 3 only
- (c) 3 and 4 only
- (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: (b)
Hint/Explanation:
Supremacy of Constitution, Rule of Law, and Independence of Judiciary are established basic features. DPSPs as a whole are directives, not all of them are unamendable basic features, though "harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs" is a basic feature. Specific DPSPs are amendable in their text.
Mains Questions
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Explain Basic Structure as judicially evolved, key to constitutionalism.
- Bedrock of Constitutionalism / Ensuring Endurance & Identity: Prevents arbitrary overhaul, safeguards core values (democracy, secularism, federalism, rule of law), maintains constitutional supremacy, allows for adaptation without losing fundamental character.
- Key Features Identified: (Illustrative list - provide examples like Supremacy of Constitution, Judicial Review, Federalism, Secularism, Rule of Law, Parliamentary System, FR-DPSP balance, Free/Fair Elections, Independence of Judiciary). Briefly explain importance.
- Significance of Not Being Exhaustive: Allows flexibility.
- Conclusion: The doctrine, by protecting core features, serves as bedrock, enabling endurance as a living document while retaining fundamental identity.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Basic Structure as a response to specific constitutional conflicts.
- Circumstances Leading to Evolution: Conflict over Right to Property & land reforms, debate on Parliament's power to amend FRs, initial SC view (Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh) vs. shift in Golak Nath, Parliamentary response (24th, 25th Amendments), Kesavananda Bharati as culmination.
- Impact on Balance of Power: Shift from Parliamentary Supremacy (in amendment) to Constitutional Supremacy, enhanced Judicial Role, limited Parliamentary Amending Power, creation of tension/dialogue.
- Conclusion: Doctrine reconciled Parliament's power with preservation of core, decisively tilted balance towards judicial oversight, shaping contemporary power balance.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Explain the uncodified, evolving nature.
- Implications for Constitutional Law: Judicial Creativity & Adaptability, Potential for Uncertainty, Subjectivity Concerns, Development of Constitutional Jurisprudence.
- Implications for Governance: Restraint on Executive/Legislative Action, Ensures Stability of Core Principles, Potential for Policy Paralysis (criticism & counter), Fosters Constitutional Dialogue.
- Conclusion: Provides crucial flexibility to safeguard core identity, while introducing uncertainty and fueling debates. Overall, serves as resilient guardian.
Trend Analysis (Past 10 Years)
Prelims Focus:
- Questions frequently test knowledge of which specific features have been identified as basic structure by the SC.
- The Kesavananda Bharati case and its core outcome remain highly important.
- Understanding that the list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
- Key cases applying or reaffirming the doctrine (Minerva Mills, S.R. Bommai, I.R. Coelho, NJAC case) are often focus areas.
Mains Focus:
- Evolution, significance, and critical analysis of the Basic Structure doctrine are central themes.
- Its impact on parliamentary amending power and the balance between Parliament and Judiciary.
- The role of the doctrine in protecting core constitutional values (democracy, secularism, federalism, FRs).
- Questions often require citing landmark cases and discussing the arguments for and against the doctrine, including its uncodified and evolving nature.
- Linking the doctrine to contemporary constitutional debates and proposed amendments.
Practice MCQs
- (a) The Supreme Court first propounded this doctrine in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
- (b) The list of basic features is explicitly enumerated in Article 368 of the Constitution.
- (c) Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters or destroys its basic features.
- (d) Judicial review has been held to be a part of the basic structure.
Answer: (b)
Explanation:
The list of basic features is NOT explicitly enumerated in the Constitution (or Article 368); it has been evolved by the Supreme Court through various judgments. (a), (c), and (d) are correct statements.
- (a) Static and unchangeable once laid down.
- (b) Applicable only to amendments concerning Fundamental Rights.
- (c) Evolving and illustrative, rather than exhaustive.
- (d) Subject to ratification by Parliament for each new feature identified.
Answer: (c)
Explanation:
The fact that the SC has not provided a closed list and has added features over time means the doctrine is evolving and the identified features are illustrative examples, not an exhaustive catalogue.
- (a) Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab
- (b) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
- (c) Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
- (d) S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India
Answer: (c)
Explanation:
While Kesavananda Bharati discussed the importance of both, the Minerva Mills case explicitly struck down the expansion of Article 31C on the ground that the harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is a basic feature that cannot be destroyed.
Practice Descriptive Questions
Key Points/Structure for Answering:
- Introduction: Explain Basic Structure as a judicial innovation and its role in preserving constitutional identity.
- Doctrine as "Ultimate Arbiter of Constitutional Identity": How it defines the limits of permissible change; Ensures amendments are consistent with foundational principles.
- Ensuring Amendments "Nurture, Not Negate" Core Philosophy: Prevents destruction of democratic, secular, federal, or rights-based framework; Allows for evolution and adaptation without loss of fundamental character.
- Key Components Identified by SC: (Illustrative List - supremacy of Constitution, judicial review, federalism, secularism, rule of law, parliamentary system, FR-DPSP balance, free/fair elections, independence of judiciary). Briefly explain importance to core philosophy.
- Dynamic Nature of the List: How this allows the doctrine to remain relevant.
- Conclusion: By protecting fundamental features, acts as ultimate arbiter of identity, nurturing growth rather than subversion.