The Basic Structure Doctrine is a legal principle in India that was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark ruling of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala in 1973. This doctrine is a form of judicial review that allows the courts to test the legality of any legislation. The doctrine holds that certain core features of the Indian Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, cannot be altered or destroyed by the Parliament through any constitutional amendment.
This doctrine has been crucial in preserving the core principles of the Indian Constitution and preventing the abuse of power by the legislature.
How it all started?
Kerala government according to land Reforms Act 1969 wanted to take over the land of adenor math of Keshav Nanda Bharti for Shankaracharya Keshav Nanda Shripadglavaru, who opposed it.
1970 he file a case for violation of his fundamental rights by the Kerala government.
The 9th Schedule was added to the Constitution by the First Amendment in 1951 along with Article 31-B to provide a “protective umbrella” to land reforms laws in order to prevent them from being challenged in court.
He argued that this action violated his fundamental right to religion (Article 25), freedom of religious denomination (Article 26), and right to property (Article 31).
The case--
12. On the side of the petitioners it is urged that the power of Parliament is much more limited. The petitioners say that the Constitution gave the Indian citizen freedoms which were to subsist for ever and the Constitution was drafted to free the nation from any future tyranny of the representatives of the people. It is this freedom from tyranny which, according to the petitioners, has been taken away by the impugned Article 31C which has been inserted by the Twenty-fifth Amendment. If Article 31C is valid, they say, hereafter Parliament and State Legislatures and not the Constitution, will determine how much freedom is good for the citizens.
These cases raise grave issues. But however grave the issues may be, the answer must depend on the interpretation of the words in Article 368, read in accordance with the principles of interpretation which are applied to the interpretation of a Constitution given by the people to themselves.
14. I must interpret Article 368 in the setting of our Constitution, in the background of our history and in the light of our aspirations and hopes, and other relevant circumstances. No other Constitution in the world is like ours. No other Constitution combines under its wings such diverse peoples, numbering now more than 550 millions, with different languages and religions and in different stages of economic development, into one nation, and no other nation is faced with such vast socio-economic problems.
15. I need hardly observe that I am not interpreting an ordinary statute, but a Constitution which apart from setting up a machinery for government, has a noble and grand vision. The vision was put in words in the Preamble and carried out in part by conferring fundamental rights on the people. The vision was directed to be further carried out by the application of directive principles.
PART II-Interpretation of Golak Nath's Case.
16. Before proceeding with the main task, it is necessary to ask : what was decided in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab [1967] 2 S.C.R. 762 ? In order to properly appreciate that case, it is necessary first to have a look at Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar [1952] S.C.R. 89 and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1965] 1 S.C.R. 933.
17. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which inserted inter alia Articles 31A and 31B in the Constitution was the subject matter of decision in Sankari Prasad's [1952] S.C.R. 89 case. The main arguments relevant to the present case which were advanced in support of the petition before this Court were summarised by Patanjali Sastri, J. as he then was, as follows:
First, the power of amending the Constitution provided for under Article 368 was conferred not on Parliament but on the two Houses of Parliament as designated body and, therefore, the provisional Parliament was not competent to exercise that power under Article 379.
Fourthly, in any case Article 368 is a complete code in itself and does not provide for any amendment being made in the bill after it has been introduced in the House. The bill in the present case having been admittedly amended in several particulars during its passage through the House, the Amendment Act cannot be said to have been passed in conformity with the procedure prescribed in Article 368.
Fifthly, the Amendment Act, in so far as it purports to take away or abridge the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, falls within the prohibition of Article 13(2)
. He then stressed the prime importance of the preamble:
The Constitution indicates three modes of amendments and assuming that the provisions of Article 368 confer power on Parliament to amend the Constitution, it will still have to be considered whether as long as the preamble stands unamended, that power can be exercised with respect to any of the basic features of the Constitution.
To illustrate my point, as long as the words 'sovereign democratic republic' are there, could the Constitution be amended so as to depart from the democratic form of Government or its republic character? If that cannot be done, then, as long as the words "Justice, social, economic and political etc.," are there could any of the rights enumerated in Articles 14 to 19, 21, 25, 31 and 32 be taken away ? If they cannot, it will be for consideration whether they can be modified.
It has been said, no doubt, that the preamble is not a part of our Constitution. But, I think, that if upon a comparison of the preamble with the broad features of the Constitution it would appear that the preamble is an epitome of those features or, to put it differently if these features are an amplification or concretisation of the concepts set out in the preamble it may have to be considered whether the preamble is not a part of the Constitution. While considering this question it would be of relevance to bear in mind that the preamble is not of the common run such as is to be found in an Act of a legislature. It has the stamp of deep deliberation and is marked by precision. Would this not suggest that the framers of the Constitution attached special significance to it
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a legal principle in India that was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark ruling of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala in 1973. This doctrine is a form of judicial review that allows the courts to test the legality of any legislation. The doctrine holds that certain core features of the Indian Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, cannot be altered or destroyed by the Parliament through any constitutional amendment. This doctrine has been crucial in preserving the core principles of the Indian Constitution and preventing the abuse of power by the legislature.
Briefly speaking:
The case dealt with the question of whether the Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Indian Constitution, including its basic structure. The petitioners in the case argued that the Parliament did not have such power, while the government contended that it did.
The relevance of 24th and 25th constituitional amendments was also under purview w.r.p to this case
The case was heard by a bench of 13 judges, which was the largest bench ever assembled by the Supreme Court at that time. The court, in a majority of 7-6, held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The court also held that the fundamental rights of citizens could not be abrogated by any constitutional amendment. The decision of the court was based on the premise that the Constitution was not just a legal document, but a social and political one as well, and that it reflected the aspirations and values of the people of India.
Article 368 of the constitution did not provide the Parliament the authority to change the basic structure of the Constitution.
Way ahead,
The concept of Basic Structure ensures that the Constitution remains a living document that can adapt to changing times and circumstances, while preserving its core values and principles. It also ensures that the powers of the legislature and the executive are subject to judicial review and that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land
Comments