Home
Indian polity
POLITY-UPSC

Basic Structure of the Constitution - UPSC Notes

The Basic Structure Doctrine is one of the most significant principles in Indian constitutional law. It evolved through a series of landmark judgments
Amith

Emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine: A Historical Perspective

The Basic Structure Doctrine is one of the most significant principles in Indian constitutional law. It evolved through a series of landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India, reflecting the tussle between Parliament’s desire for absolute authority and the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.

To understand how this doctrine emerged, it's crucial to look at the historical and political context leading up to each case.

🏛️ Background: Post-Independence Constitutional Challenges

After India gained independence in 1947 and adopted the Constitution in 1950, the government embarked on a mission to promote social justice, economic equality, and land reforms to eliminate poverty and reduce disparities. However, many of these reforms clashed with Fundamental Rights, particularly the Right to Property (Article 31), which protected landowners.

This conflict between socialist economic policies and individual rights laid the groundwork for the legal battles that followed.

1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

  • What Happened Before:
    The First Constitutional Amendment (1951) was introduced by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to address legal obstacles in implementing land reform laws. The amendment added Article 31A and 31B, protecting laws related to land reforms from being challenged in courts, even if they violated Fundamental Rights.

    This led to a direct confrontation: Could Parliament amend Fundamental Rights to achieve socio-economic goals?

  • Issue:
    Whether Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.

  • Judgment:
    The Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s authority, stating that constitutional amendments are not considered “law” under Article 13, thus allowing changes to Fundamental Rights.

  • Impact:
    This ruling gave Parliament broad powers to amend the Constitution without judicial interference, reinforcing the dominance of the legislature.

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

  • What Happened Before:
    Despite the First Amendment, land reforms continued to face legal challenges. To strengthen land reform laws, the government introduced the 17th Amendment (1964), adding more laws to the Ninth Schedule (which protected them from judicial review).

  • Issue:
    Whether Parliament could continue to amend Fundamental Rights to protect land reforms.

  • Judgment:
    The Court reaffirmed its decision in Shankari Prasad, allowing Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights.

  • Dissenting Voices:
    For the first time, judges like Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar questioned whether there are "inherent limits" to Parliament’s power, hinting at the need to protect the basic framework of the Constitution. This planted the seeds for the Basic Structure Doctrine.

3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

  • What Happened Before:
    By the mid-1960s, the government’s aggressive land reforms and redistributive policies faced increasing opposition from property owners and legal experts. The 17th Amendment had further limited the Right to Property, causing widespread discontent.

    The Golaknath family, wealthy landowners from Punjab, challenged the constitutional amendments that affected their property rights.

  • Issue:
    Could Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368?

  • Judgment:
    The Court reversed its earlier decisions, ruling that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. It treated constitutional amendments as “law” under Article 13, bringing them within the scope of judicial review.

  • Impact:
    This judgment restricted Parliament’s power and created a constitutional crisis. The government saw it as a barrier to social reform, leading to tensions between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

  • What Happened Before:
    The Golaknath verdict frustrated the government, particularly Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who sought to implement her socialist agenda. To regain power to amend the Constitution, the government passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which:

    • Restored Parliament’s authority to amend Fundamental Rights.
    • Limited the scope of judicial review over land reform laws.

    Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala government’s attempt to take over his mutt’s land under the new amendments.

  • Issue:
    Does Parliament have the unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including its fundamental principles?

  • Judgment:
    In a historic 7-6 verdict, the Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine:

    • Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its “basic structure.”
    • The basic structure includes democracy, secularism, rule of law, judicial review, federalism, and separation of powers.

  • Impact:
    This judgment struck a delicate balance—Parliament could amend the Constitution, but the core principles were beyond its reach. It’s considered the “guardian judgment” of India’s constitutional democracy.

5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

  • What Happened Before:
    In the 1971 general elections, Indira Gandhi was accused of electoral malpractices. The Allahabad High Court found her guilty, disqualifying her from office. To protect herself, her government passed the 39th Amendment, removing election disputes involving the Prime Minister from judicial review.

  • Issue:
    Was this amendment constitutional?

  • Judgment:
    The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, stating that free and fair elections and judicial review are part of the basic structure.

  • Impact:
    This verdict reaffirmed that no individual, including the Prime Minister, is above the Constitution. It highlighted the importance of the judiciary in checking political power.

6. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

  • What Happened Before:
    After facing criticism for the Emergency (1975-77), Indira Gandhi’s government had passed the 42nd Amendment, giving absolute power to Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution and limiting judicial review.

  • Issue:
    Could Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution, even to the extent of removing judicial review?

  • Judgment:
    The Supreme Court ruled that limited amending power itself is part of the basic structure. It struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, emphasizing a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

  • Impact:
    This judgment reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine and protected democracy from authoritarian tendencies.

7. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)

  • What Happened Before:
    Post-Kesavananda, several constitutional amendments were made, especially regarding land reforms. The question was whether these amendments made after 1973 could be reviewed under the Basic Structure Doctrine.

  • Issue:
    Are constitutional amendments made after April 24, 1973 (Kesavananda verdict), subject to the basic structure test?

  • Judgment:
    The Court held that all amendments after April 24, 1973, are subject to the basic structure test, while those made before that date were upheld.

  • Impact:
    This decision provided clarity on the applicability of the Basic Structure Doctrine to future amendments.

8. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

  • What Happened Before:
    To shield certain laws from judicial scrutiny, Parliament placed them in the Ninth Schedule, claiming they were immune from review. However, some of these laws affected Fundamental Rights.

  • Issue:
    Can laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 1973 escape judicial review if they violate the basic structure?

  • Judgment:
    The Supreme Court ruled that even laws in the Ninth Schedule are subject to the basic structure test if they violate core constitutional principles.

  • Impact:
    This verdict reaffirmed that no law is above the Constitution. Judicial review, as part of the basic structure, ensures constitutional supremacy.

Here’s a refined version with detailed explanations for each element, presenting the Elements of the Basic Structure as per the evolved jurisprudence of the Supreme Court:

Elements of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution 🌟

The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), ensures that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the essential features that define the Constitution's identity.

The core idea is that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy these fundamental features that form the "soul" of the Constitution.

Although the Supreme Court has not provided a fixed or exhaustive list, various judgments have identified the following as the core elements of the Basic Structure:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution

  • The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
  • All laws, actions, and amendments must conform to its provisions.
  • No authority, including Parliament, is above the Constitution.

2. Sovereign, Democratic, and Republican Nature of the Indian Polity

  • Sovereign: India is independent in its internal and external affairs.
  • Democratic: Power resides with the people, exercised through free and fair elections.
  • Republic: The head of state (President) is elected, not hereditary.

3. Secular Character of the Constitution

  • The State maintains neutrality towards all religions.
  • There is no official state religion, and every citizen enjoys freedom of religion.

4. Separation of Powers

  • The legislature, executive, and judiciary are distinct branches with separate functions.
  • Prevents the concentration of power and ensures checks and balances.

5. Federal Character of the Constitution

  • Division of powers between the Union and the States (Schedule VII: Union, State, Concurrent lists).
  • Though India is a quasi-federal state, the federal principles ensure autonomy for states.

6. Unity and Integrity of the Nation

  • Promotes a strong sense of national identity and cohesion.
  • Ensures that India remains unified despite its diverse cultures, languages, and religions.

7. Welfare State (Socio-Economic Justice)

  • The Constitution aims to establish a welfare state that provides social, economic, and political justice.
  • Reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

8. Judicial Review

  • The power of courts to review laws and executive actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution.
  • Acts as the guardian of the Constitution.

9. Freedom and Dignity of the Individual

  • Upholds the inherent dignity, freedom, and equality of every individual.
  • Ensures personal liberties, human rights, and constitutional protections.

10. Parliamentary System of Government

  • Based on the Westminster model, where the executive is accountable to the legislature.
  • Includes features like the Prime Minister, Council of Ministers, and collective responsibility.

11. Rule of Law

  • Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws (Article 14).
  • Ensures that no one is above the law, including government officials.

12. Harmony and Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

  • The Constitution maintains a harmonious relationship between individual rights (Part III) and social welfare goals (Part IV).
  • Both are essential for a just and equitable society.

13. Principle of Equality

  • Equality before the law (Article 14) and prohibition of discrimination (Articles 15-18).
  • Ensures fairness, justice, and equal opportunity for all citizens.

14. Free and Fair Elections

  • Elections must be conducted in a manner that ensures genuine representation of the people’s will.
  • A cornerstone of democratic governance.

15. Independence of the Judiciary

  • The judiciary must be free from political influence to ensure impartial justice.
  • Includes security of tenure, fixed salaries, and independent appointment processes.

16. Limited Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution

  • While Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure.
  • Amending power is not absolute and is subject to judicial scrutiny.

17. Effective Access to Justice

  • Ensures that every citizen can approach the courts to protect their rights.
  • Includes provisions for legal aid and affordable justice.

18. Principles (or Essence) Underlying Fundamental Rights

  • The core values behind Fundamental Rights, such as freedom, equality, justice, and fraternity, are protected.
  • Parliament cannot dilute the spirit of these rights through amendments.

19. Powers of the Supreme Court (Articles 32, 136, 141, 142)

  • Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies—called the "heart and soul" of the Constitution (Dr. Ambedkar).
  • Article 136: Special Leave Petition (SLP) jurisdiction, allowing the Supreme Court to hear appeals.
  • Article 141: Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all courts in India.
  • Article 142: Enables the Court to pass orders to do "complete justice" in any case.

20. Powers of the High Courts (Articles 226 and 227)

  • Article 226: Power to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights.
  • Article 227: Power of superintendence over all subordinate courts within their jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that India’s constitutional identity remains intact, even as it adapts to changing times. These elements safeguard the democratic fabric, individual freedoms, and rule of law, making the Constitution both rigid and flexible at the same time.

While Parliament can amend, it can never destroy the core principles that define India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. 🚩

Post a Comment