The concept of ‘basic structure’ in the Indian Constitution has its roots embedded in a historic judgement from 1973, the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala. This seminal development was the culmination of several years of debates on the extent of Parliament’s power to amend crucial provisions within the Constitution. However, this wasn’t always the case. In the early years following India’s independence, the Supreme Court had granted absolute powers to the Parliament in the context of constitutional amendments. This stance altered over time, culminating in the introduction of ‘basic structure.’
The initial stance on Constitutional amendments
In the early years following India’s independence, two significant cases, Shankari Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965), clearly demonstrated that the Supreme Court conceded absolute power to Parliament for amending the Constitution. The court ruled that the term “law” in Article 13 referred to rules or regulations established through ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution enacted through constituent power under Article 368. Consequently, the Parliament could amend any part of the constitution, including Fundamental rights, as dictated by Article 13(2).
Transition towards limiting amendment power – Golaknath case (1967)
The Supreme Court’s stance towards constitutional amendments underwent a significant change with the Golaknath case (1967). The court ruled that Parliament couldn’t amend Fundamental Rights, a power reserved solely for a Constituent Assembly. It stated that an amendment under Article 368 is a “law” within the context of Article 13 of the Constitution. Therefore, any such amendment that “takes away or abridges” a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III is void.
Constitutional Amendments and the Kesavananda Bharati case
To circumvent the Supreme Court’s judgments, particularly the Golaknath case, the reigning government led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi enacted significant amendments to the Constitution (the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th). These amendments were ultimately challenged in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case.
Kesavananda Bharati case and the concept of ‘Basic Structure’
The Kesavananda Bharati case was a plea against the Kerala government over two land reform laws that imposed restrictions on the management of religious property. The case’s central question was whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited. Could Parliament alter any part of the Constitution, including the removal of all Fundamental Rights? In response, the court ruled, with a 7-6 verdict, that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution as long as it did not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
Interpretation and implications of ‘Basic Structure’
Although the court did not provide a concrete definition for ‘basic structure,’ it cited a few principles, including federalism, secularism, and democracy, as elements of this concept. Since then, the ‘basic structure’ doctrine has been expanded to include the Constitution’s supremacy, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, doctrine of separation of powers, and more. An instance of this doctrine’s application can be seen in the SR Bommai case (1994).
Critical perspectives on ‘Basic Structure’
Critics of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine have labeled it undemocratic because unelected judges can annul a constitutional amendment. However, proponents view it as a safeguard against majoritarianism and authoritarianism. The theory originated from Justice Mudholkar in the Sajjan Singh case (1965), who referred to a decision from the Supreme Court of Pakistan from 1963.
