Scribd
Upload
168 views3 pages

Basic Structure of Constitution: Why in News

The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case established India's "basic structure" doctrine, ruling that Parliament can amend the Constitution as long as it does not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. However, the court did not define "basic structure". Since then, the basic structure has been interpreted to include principles like federalism, secularism, democracy, and the independence of the judiciary. The basic structure doctrine allows the judiciary to strike down constitutional amendments that undermine principles deemed essential to India's constitutional identity and prevents unlimited amendment power of Parliament.

Uploaded by

Saurabh Yadav
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
168 views3 pages

Basic Structure of Constitution: Why in News

The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case established India's "basic structure" doctrine, ruling that Parliament can amend the Constitution as long as it does not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. However, the court did not define "basic structure". Since then, the basic structure has been interpreted to include principles like federalism, secularism, democracy, and the independence of the judiciary. The basic structure doctrine allows the judiciary to strike down constitutional amendments that undermine principles deemed essential to India's constitutional identity and prevents unlimited amendment power of Parliament.

Uploaded by

Saurabh Yadav
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Basic Structure of Constitution

drishtiias.com/printpdf/basic-structure-of-constitution

Why in News
The concept of ‘basic structure’ came into existence in the landmark judgment in
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case (1973) 47 years ago.

Background
Since the adoption of Indian Constitution, debates have started regarding the power
of the Parliament to amend key provisions of the Constitution.
In the early years of Independence, the Supreme Court conceded absolute
power to Parliament in amending the Constitution, as was seen in the
verdicts in Shankari Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965).
In both the cases the court had ruled that the term “law” in Article 13 must
be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary
legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in
exercise of constituent power under Article 368.
This means Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution
including Fundamental rights.
Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or
abridges the right conferred by this Part (Part-III) and any law made in
contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void."
However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament
could not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a
Constituent Assembly.
The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within
the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an
amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part
III, it is void.

1/3
To get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967),
RC Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the then
government headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had enacted major
amendments to the Constitution (the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th).
All the four amendments brought by the government were challenged in the
Kesavananda Bharati case.

Kesavananda Bharati case


In Kesavananda Bharati case, a relief was sought against the Kerala government vis-
à-vis two state land reform laws, which imposed restrictions on the management
of religious property.
The case was challenged under Article 26, concerning the right to manage
religiously owned property without government interference.
Question underlying the case: Was the power of Parliament to amend the
Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend,
abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all
fundamental rights?
The Constitutional Bench in Kesavananda Bharati case ruled by a 7-6 verdict that
Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not
alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the
Constitution.
However, the court did not define the term ‘basic structure’, and only listed a
few principles — federalism, secularism, democracy — as being its part.
The ‘basic structure’ doctrine has since been interpreted to include
the supremacy of the Constitution,
the rule of law,
Independence of the judiciary,
doctrine of separation of powers,
sovereign democratic republic,
the parliamentary system of government,
the principle of free and fair elections,
welfare state, etc.
An example of application of basic structure is the SR Bommai case (1994).
In this case the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of BJP governments by the
President following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, invoking a threat to
secularism by these governments.
Arguments related to Basic structure
Critics of the doctrine have called it undemocratic, since unelected judges can
strike down a constitutional amendment. At the same time, its proponents have
hailed the concept as a safety valve against majoritarianism and
authoritarianism.
2/3
Origin: The basic structure theory was first introduced by Justice Mudholkar
in the Sajjan Singh case (1965) by referring to a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court
of Pakistan.
Chief Justice Cornelius of Pakistan had held that the President of Pakistan
could not alter the “fundamental features” of their Constitution.

Source: IE

3/3

You might also like