BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
Introduction
The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a judicial principle that acts as a safeguard for the Constitution of India. It ensures that while the Parliament has vast powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, such powers are not absolute. The doctrine prohibits the Parliament from altering or destroying the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution, thereby preserving its core ideals such as democracy, rule of law, secularism, and the supremacy of the Constitution itself.
Origin of Doctrine
The doctrine of basic structure originated in India and is one of the most important principles in Indian constitutional law. It was formulated by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Background:
• The case arose out of a challenge to the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
• The main question was: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
Verdict:
• The Supreme Court held that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but this power is not unlimited.
• The Court ruled (by a 7–6 majority) that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
The doctrine was formulated by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Prior to this case, in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
However, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court reversed its position, ruling that Parliament could not amend Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights). This triggered a constitutional crisis and led to the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments.
The matter finally reached a climax in the Kesavananda Bharati case, where a 13-judge bench, the largest ever in Indian judicial history, delivered a deeply divided judgment. By a 7:6 majority, the Court held that while Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, it could not alter the "basic structure".
What constitutes the Basic Structure ?
The "basic structure" of the Indian Constitution refers to those fundamental principles and values that form the core of the Constitution — which cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments made by Parliament under Article 368.
The Supreme Court has never provided an exhaustive list, but through various landmark judgments, it has identified several essential features that are considered part of the basic structure.
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
• The Constitution is the highest law of the land.
• All laws and amendments must conform to it.
2. Sovereign, Democratic, and Republic Character
• India’s identity as a sovereign, democratic, and republican nation cannot be changed.
3. Secularism
• The State must maintain an equal distance from all religions.
• No state religion.
4. Federalism
• Division of powers between the Centre and the States must be preserved.
5. Separation of Powers
• The three branches — Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary — must operate independently.
6. Rule of Law
• Everyone, including the government, is subject to the law.
• No one is above the law.
7. Judicial Review
• The judiciary has the power to review laws and constitutional amendments.
8 . Independence of Judiciary
• The judiciary must be free from influence by the executive or legislature.
9. Free and Fair Elections
• Democracy is maintained only through genuine electoral processes.
10. Unity and Integrity of the Nation
• The territorial and political integrity of India must be preserved.
11. Parliamentary System of Government
• The system based on collective responsibility and ministerial accountability.
12. Fundamental Rights (Certain Core Rights)
Key judgment strengthening the doctrine
• Some Fundamental Rights — like the right to equality, freedom of speech, etc. — are part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court struck down the 39th Amendment which sought to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny, holding it violated the basic structure.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court emphasized the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy as a part of the basic structure.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Federalism and secularism were reinforced as part of the basic structure, especially in the context of dismissal of state governments under Article 356.
Criticism of the Basic Structure Doctrine
1. Lack of Constitutional Basis
• The biggest criticism is that the doctrine is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
• It is a judicial innovation—formulated by the judiciary, not by the framers of the Constitution.
Critics argue that judges “read into” the Constitution what isn’t there, which goes against the principle of separation of powers.
2. Vagueness and Uncertainty
• The doctrine does not define a clear or exhaustive list of what constitutes the "basic structure."
• This creates ambiguity and makes it difficult to predict how courts will rule on constitutional amendments.
“What is ‘basic’ is determined by the judges’ subjective understanding.”
3. Judicial Overreach
• Critics say the doctrine allows the judiciary to override the will of Parliament, which is democratically elected.
• It gives the unelected judiciary the final say on constitutional matters, raising questions about judicial supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty.
“The Supreme Court becomes a super-legislature.”
4. Undermines Parliamentary Sovereignty
• Parliament is empowered by Article 368 to amend the Constitution, but the doctrine restricts that power.
• Critics say it undermines the sovereignty of the people, who act through their elected representatives.
5. Inconsistency in Application
• The basic structure has been applied selectively and inconsistently in some cases.
• There's no consistent principle guiding what is or isn’t part of the basic structure.
6. Constitutional Deadlock
• In theory, if a future Parliament wants to make radical reforms for public welfare, the doctrine might block progressive amendments, even if widely supported.
• It may lead to a stalemate between Parliament and Judiciary, limiting constitutional evolution.
Dissenting View
• In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) itself, 6 out of 13 judges disagreed with the doctrine.
• Justice A.N. Ray and others believed Parliament’s amending power should be unlimited, as long as procedural requirements are met.
Conclusion:
With this I would like to conclude that the Basic Structure Doctrine enroots the Indian constitution protecting the rights and liberty of the nation as a whole. Without this doctrine our country would get into social anarchy as each person will be demanding his own personal rights to be protected. The constitution is made to protect the unity of the country not the personal right or liberty of any individual. The true essence of this only lies in the basic structure doctrine.