Introduction
The Constitution of India is a living document—dynamic yet foundational—crafted to balance the ideals of democracy, justice, liberty, and equality. However, no document, however sacred, is immune to change. The Indian Constitution permits amendments under Article 368, empowering Parliament to adjust constitutional provisions as per changing societal needs. But what if the essence of the Constitution itself is threatened by such amendments?
To answer this, the Doctrine of Basic Structure emerged—a judicial innovation ensuring that while amendments are permissible, the fundamental soul of the Constitution remains inviolable. Introduced by the judiciary, this doctrine has become a cornerstone in preserving the sanctity and democratic spirit of India’s Constitution.
Meaning and Definition
The Doctrine of Basic Structure refers to the judicial principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed through parliamentary amendments, even under the wide powers granted by Article 368. These fundamental features include democracy, the rule of law, secularism, separation of powers, and judicial review, among others.
It is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but was developed by the judiciary through interpretation.
Objectives of the Doctrine
- To preserve the identity of the Constitution.
- To ensure that the power to amend does not become the power to destroy.
- To protect the fundamental rights of citizens from arbitrary legislative action.
- To maintain the balance between flexibility and rigidity in constitutional governance.
- To uphold constitutional morality and the rule of law.
Background and Need
After India became a republic in 1950, the Parliament was empowered to amend the Constitution. Initially, the scope of this power was largely unrestricted. However, over time, tensions arose between the Parliament’s amending power and the Fundamental Rights of citizens, especially when Parliament attempted to alter these rights for policy reasons (e.g., land reform and socio-economic reorganisation). This prompted a constitutional debate—could Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, even to the extent of changing its fundamental character?
Historical Evolution and Key Milestones
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
The Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. - Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
Reiterated the Shankari Prasad view. However, dissent began to appear, warning of the dangers of unchecked amendment powers. - Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
A 6:5 majority held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, bringing in the concept that these rights are transcendental and cannot be altered. - Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The most significant case in Indian constitutional history. A 13-judge bench ruled that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter the ‘basic structure’. This judgment introduced and firmly established the doctrine. - Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Applied the doctrine to strike down a constitutional amendment that attempted to immunize the prime minister’s election from judicial review. - Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Reinforced that limited amending power is part of the basic structure itself. It struck down clauses that gave unlimited power to Parliament. - S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Declared secularism and federalism as basic features. - I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Held that laws placed under the 9th Schedule after 1973 are subject to judicial review if they damage the basic structure.
Key Features and Components of the Basic Structure
While the court has not provided an exhaustive list, features generally accepted as forming part of the basic structure include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Sovereign, democratic, and secular character of the Indian state
- Separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary
- Federalism
- Judicial review
- Rule of law
- Unity and integrity of the nation
- Freedom and dignity of the individual
- Parliamentary system of governance
- Free and fair elections
- Independent judiciary
- Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Constitutional Validity
Though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the validity and necessity of the doctrine, grounding it in constitutional interpretation, the Preamble, and the underlying values of the document. The doctrine ensures that Article 368 does not override the Constitution’s core philosophy, thus creating a system of checks and balances.
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
- Article 368 – Empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution but has been interpreted to exclude changes that harm the basic structure.
- Article 13 – Declares that laws violating Fundamental Rights are void; its interpretation has been pivotal in judicial decisions regarding constitutional amendments.
- Article 32 & 226 – Provide the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court and High Courts, a part of the basic structure.
Benefits of the Doctrine
- Preserves the constitutional identity and philosophy.
- Prevents authoritarian misuse of power by Parliament.
- Secures the Fundamental Rights of citizens from legislative overreach.
- Maintains checks and balances among the organs of government.
- Upholds democratic values and constitutional morality.
Demerits and Criticisms
- Not explicitly defined in the Constitution; relies heavily on judicial interpretation.
- Gives immense power to the judiciary, leading to charges of judicial overreach.
- Creates uncertainty, as there is no exhaustive list of basic features.
- Undermines parliamentary sovereignty, leading to constitutional friction.
Importance and Relevance Today
The basic structure doctrine is crucial in a vibrant democracy like India where the Parliament is powerful but not supreme. It ensures that essential democratic principles are not diluted in the name of reform or expediency. Particularly in times of political turbulence, this doctrine has safeguarded constitutional governance from turning into majoritarian rule or autocracy.
In a global context, the doctrine has inspired constitutional discourse in other jurisdictions. Countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan have adopted similar principles after judicial admiration of India’s model.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a shining example of judicial ingenuity designed to protect the very heart of India’s Constitution. It underscores that while the Constitution is flexible and adaptive, its foundational principles are sacrosanct and eternal. Amid evolving political, social, and economic landscapes, this doctrine acts as the Constitutional sentinel, ensuring that change does not amount to destruction. It upholds the vision of the founding fathers while adapting to contemporary challenges—striking the perfect balance between continuity and change.
CONTRIBUTED BY – ANSHU (INTERN)