Basic Structure Doctrine and Its Evolving Jurisprudence

1. Historical Background:

The Indian Constitution, which was adopted as the supreme law of the land in 1950, provides a framework for governance and fundamental rights under the rule of law. Article 368 conferred upon the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, but it left open the question of whether this power was absolute or had limitations.

Initially, the Supreme Court considered the Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 to be virtually absolute, as reflected in judgments like Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965). The nature of these judgments led to significant controversy regarding the protection of Fundamental Rights and the scope of judicial review.

2. Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Rise of Basic Structure Doctrine

The landmark 1973 case, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, addressed whether Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. In a narrow 7:6 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy its “basic structure.” The Court identified certain features—such as democratic framework, separation of powers, rule of law, and the sanctity of Fundamental Rights—as part of this “basic structure,” making them immune from parliamentary amendments. This landmark judgment thus curbed Parliament’s unbridled supremacy, ensuring that core constitutional principles remained intact.

Key Features of the Basic Structure Doctrine:

• Article 13: Declares that the Constitution is the supreme law, and no law can contravene it, setting restrictions upon all other laws.
• Sovereignty, Democracy, and Republic Character: India must always remain a sovereign, democratic, and republic nation.
• Judicial Review: Courts have the power to assess the validity of legislative and executive actions.
• Federalism: The federal nature of governance with powers distributed between the Centre and states.
• Secularism: The State cannot adopt or favour any religion.
• Separation of Powers: Division of powers among the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches.
• Fundamental Rights: The essence of rights conferred on citizens cannot be compromised.

3. Jurisprudence post-Kesavananda: Emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine

Since Kesavananda Bharati, the basic structure doctrine has been reaffirmed and expanded through various landmark judgments, defining its components and clarifying the relationship between constitutional amendments and judicial intervention.

a. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):

Amid the Emergency period and the contested election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the Supreme Court invalidated the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to prevent judicial review of electoral disputes involving the Prime Minister. The Court held that judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be nullified by any amendment. This case underscored judicial independence and electoral fairness as basic structure elements.

b. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):

The Supreme Court further developed the doctrine, declaring parts of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional as it subordinated Fundamental Rights to Directive Principles of State Policy. The Court held that maintaining a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure and cannot be altered by amendments, reaffirming that Parliament’s amending power is itself a fundamental feature of the Constitution.

c. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981):

This case reiterated the Kesavananda ruling, clarifying that constitutional amendments made before April 24, 1973, could not be challenged under the basic structure doctrine, setting a clear cutoff for future amendments.

d. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007):

The Court ruled that laws added to the Ninth Schedule, traditionally shielded from judicial review, are subject to the basic structure doctrine. This expanded the doctrine to ensure that no law or constitutional provision, even in the Ninth Schedule, would evade scrutiny if it violated the basic structure.

e. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015):

The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to establish the NJAC for judicial appointments, asserting that judicial independence is a core component of the basic structure. The amendment, by giving the executive greater say in judicial appointments, was found to violate this principle.

4. Criticisms and Controversies of the Basic Structure Doctrine

While the doctrine has been praised for safeguarding constitutional values, it has also faced criticism.

a. Judicial Overreach:

Critics argue that the doctrine gives unelected judges excessive power to invalidate constitutional amendments, reducing Parliament’s sovereignty. The evolving interpretations of what constitutes the basic structure often blur the lines between judicial and legislative authority.

b. Elusiveness of the Basic Structure:

The doctrine lacks a precise definition and is neither explicit nor exhaustive. Judicial attempts to define basic structure elements have led to charges of subjectivism and imprecision, making it difficult for legislators to anticipate which amendments might be invalidated.

c. Parliament Supremacy vs. Judicial Review:

The doctrine represents a balance between Parliament’s supremacy and judicial review. Critics contend that, as the elected representative body, Parliament should have more leeway in reflecting the people’s will through constitutional amendments.

5. Progressive Jurisprudence and Contemporary Impact

The basic structure doctrine has proven to be adaptable to India’s ever-evolving socio-political landscape, protecting democracy during turbulent times like the Emergency. Recent Supreme Court rulings on institutional independence and civil liberties illustrate the doctrine’s continuing relevance in the 21st century, as it addresses issues in federalism, secularism, and separation of powers. Given India’s dynamic environment, the doctrine is likely to remain crucial in future legal battles.

6. Conclusion

The Basic Structure Doctrine stands as a testament to the resilience of the Indian Constitution, acting as a safeguard against arbitrary amendments that could endanger democratic values. Despite criticism, the doctrine plays an undeniable role in preserving the Constitution’s core principles, ensuring that it remains a living document adaptable to changing times while upholding foundational principles.