Discuss the evolution and impact of the Basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution


Discuss the evolution and impact of the Basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It provides the framework within which the country is governed. The Constitution also gives special powers to the Parliament and State legislatures to make laws. One of these powers is the ability to amend the Constitution. But a big question has always remained: Can Parliament change everything in the Constitution, or are there some limits?

This question led to the development of the "Basic Structure Doctrine", a principle that has become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. The doctrine says that although Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy or alter its "basic structure." In other words, some fundamental features of the Constitution are beyond the reach of politicians.

Let us now discuss how this doctrine evolved, what its major features are, and how it has impacted Indian democracy.

Background: Power to Amend the Constitution

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. This means that if the two Houses of Parliament pass an amendment by a special majority, and it is signed by the President, the Constitution can be changed.

But soon after independence, doubts arose:

  • Does "amend" mean Parliament can change anything in the Constitution, even fundamental rights?
  • Or are there some natural limits?

To answer these doubts, several important court cases were filed. These cases gradually gave birth to the "basic structure doctrine."

Important Cases in the Evolution of the Doctrine

1. Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

  • The very first case on this question came soon after the Constitution was adopted.
  • The issue was whether Parliament could amend fundamental rights (like the right to equality, freedom, and property).
  • The Supreme Court ruled that yes, Parliament can amend fundamental rights, because the power to amend is very wide.
  • Thus, no limitation was placed on Parliament in this judgment.

2. Sajjan Singh Case (1965)

  • Again, the Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights.
  • However, for the first time, a few judges expressed concern. They said that some fundamental features of the Constitution should remain untouched.
  • This was the first small step towards the later "basic structure" idea.

3. Golaknath Case (1967)

  • This case changed everything.
  • The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights at all.
  • The Court said that an amendment is also a form of "law," and according to Article 13, no law can take away fundamental rights.
  • This decision greatly limited Parliament’s power.

This judgment upset the government because it tied Parliament’s hands. To overcome this, the government brought new constitutional amendments giving itself more power.

4. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

  • This is the most famous and historic case in Indian constitutional history.
  • A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard it – the largest bench ever.
  • The Court gave a very balanced judgment:
    • Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
    • But Parliament cannot alter or destroy the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
  • Thus, the Basic Structure Doctrine was born.

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

  • This case was connected with the Emergency period.
  • The Supreme Court applied the doctrine and struck down a constitutional amendment that tried to make the Prime Minister’s election unquestionable.
  • The Court held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

6. Minerva Mills Case (1980)

  • Here, the Supreme Court strengthened the doctrine.
  • It said that giving unlimited power to Parliament itself would violate the basic structure.
  • Thus, the Court struck a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, saying both are essential parts of the Constitution.

7. Later Cases

  • Waman Rao Case (1981): The Court confirmed that amendments made after 1973 could be reviewed if they violated the basic structure.
  • S.R. Bommai Case (1994): The Court ruled that secularism is part of the basic structure.
  • I.R. Coelho Case (2007): Even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule (which usually protects them from judicial review) can be struck down if they violate the basic structure.

What Are the Elements of the Basic Structure?

The Court never gave an exact list of what forms the basic structure. But over time, through various judgments, some key elements have been identified:

1.Supremacy of the Constitution

2.Rule of law

3.Independence of the judiciary

4.Separation of powers between legislature, executive, and judiciary

5.Judicial review

6.Parliamentary democracy

7.Federalism

8.Secularism

9.Free and fair elections

10.              Fundamental rights and dignity of the individual

This list is not closed. The Court can add more elements in future cases if needed.

Impact of the Basic Structure Doctrine

1. Limits on Parliament

The doctrine ensures that Parliament cannot misuse its power to make drastic changes that harm democracy or individual rights.

2. Judicial Safeguard

The Supreme Court acts as a guardian of the Constitution. It can review amendments and strike them down if they violate the basic structure.

3. Balance of Power

It prevents one organ of the state (like Parliament) from becoming too powerful. It maintains a healthy balance between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

4. Protection of Democracy

The doctrine has saved Indian democracy during crises, such as the Emergency. By declaring free and fair elections, secularism, and rule of law as part of the basic structure, the Court protected citizens’ rights.

5. Flexibility with Stability

The Constitution can still be amended to meet new needs, but its core values remain safe. This gives both flexibility and stability.

Criticism of the Doctrine

1.Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that judges, who are not elected, should not have the final say over what Parliament can or cannot do.

2.No Clear List: Since the Court never gave a fixed list of what counts as the basic structure, it creates uncertainty.

3.Against Popular Will: Some say it limits the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.

Despite these criticisms, most scholars agree that the doctrine has helped preserve India’s democratic spirit.

The Basic Structure Doctrine is one of the greatest contributions of the Indian judiciary to constitutional law. Born in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), it has acted as a shield to protect democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law. It ensures that while the Constitution can evolve and change with time, its essential spirit cannot be destroyed.

In a country as diverse and dynamic as India, this doctrine has played a vital role in keeping the democratic framework intact. It is a fine example of how the judiciary can act as a guardian of the Constitution and the people.