Latest Articles
Back
Basic Structure Doctrine
Basic Structure Doctrine
The theory of basic structure doctrine has been propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgement of Kesvananda Bharati Case, 1973 in order to control the amending power of the Parliament. Article 368 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to amend the Constitution. But such amending power is subject to the restriction laid down that, while exercising such power the Parliament cannot dilute or violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The amending power of the Parliament is not absolute in nature. If the Parliament passes any law that violates any provisions of the Constitution then the Supreme Court has the power to declare such law as invalid or ultra vires. Now the question arises as to what constitutes Basic Structure. The term Basic Structure has nowhere been expressed or mentioned in the Constitution, thereby having no textual basis and legal validity. The power to determine the constituents of basic structure thus rests with the courts to decide from case to case.
The whole development of “basic structure” has been a tussle for power between the power of judicial review and amending power of Parliament. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India the 1st Constitution amendment act was challenged and the questioned aroused that whether the parliament can amend fundamental rights laid under Part III of the Constitution. The SC held that the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental rights. In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan the court followed its earlier decision passed in Shankari Prasad’s case and held that any part of the Constitution can be amended. In another case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab the question raised was that whether the amending power is limited or unlimited in nature. An eleven judge bench was constituted for the 1st time and it was held that the power vested by the Parliament is not unlimited it is subject to limitations of Judicial review. Thus, the court overruled its earlier decision. Later the 24th Constitution amendment act was passed by the Parliament wherein they added a clause to Article 13 that said nothing in Article 13 would be applicable to Article 368, thus making the amending power of Parliament unlimited and would not attract the ambit of Judicial review. Thereby overruling the judgement laid under Golak Nath case.
In kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala the Constitutional validity of 24th amendment act was challenged. The Supreme Court in this case held that the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but its basic features cannot be amended. Thus making the power of the Parliament wide but not unlimited. The period after Kesavananda is one where the doctrine has been evolved case to case. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narayan and Minerva Mills v. UOI, judicial review and harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy were added to the Basic feature. In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, the court added free and fair elections to basic features. In Indira Swahney v. UOI, rule of law was added. In S.R Bommai v. UOI, federal structure, unity, integrity, secularism, socialism, social justice and judicial review were reiterated. Is is evident that the list of basic features is not an exhaustive one. In a nut shell it can be said that the debate has come to an end and it can be safely concluded that the Parliament while exercising its power under 368 cannot abridge the basic features of the Constitution.
