Article1 3i sof t

enchar act eri

zedast heguar antoroff undament alr i
ghtsint he
const i
tuti
on.I tpr ovidest hat‘t he st ate’ shal lnotmake any‘l aw’ t hat
abr i
dges any of t he f undament alr ight s guar anteed i n Par tI IIof t he
const i
tuti
on.6Ar t
icle1 2def i
nes‘t hest at e’ wi delyt oi nclude‘Gover nment
andt hePar l
iamentofI ndia’ aswel lasot heraut horit
ies‘al llocalandwi thin
thet erri
toryofI ndiaorundert hecont roloft heGover nmentofI ndia’ t obe
subj ectt ojudicialreview underAr ti
cle1 3.Thef undament alr i
ghtspr ot
ectedi n
Par tI I
Iincludet her ight stol i
feandper sonall iber t
y7andr ightsguar anteei ng
equal i
tyofal lper sonsbef orelaw. 8Readwi t
hAr ti
cles32and226,Ar ti
cle1 3
author izest heSupr emeCour tandt heHi ghCour tsi nt heSt atest odecl are
i
nval id any ‘l aw’ whi ch abr idges t hese r ights.The ar gument sint he
const i
tuti
onalamendmentcases f ocus on whet hert he scope oft he t erm
‘l aw’ i swi deenought oincludeconst i
tut i
onalamendment s.Theoper ative
par tofAr ti
cle1 3(2)pr ovidest hat:‘TheSt ateshal lnotmakeanyl aw whi ch
takesawayorabr i
dgest her i
ght sconf erredbyt hisPar tandanyl aw madei n
cont ravent i
onoft hisclauseshal l,tot heext entoft hecont ravent ion,bevoi d.’
Forconst i
tut
ionalamendment stobesubj ectt oj udicialreview underAr t
icle1 3,
the cour tsneed t of ind t hatconst i
tutionalamendment sar e ‘l aw’ under
Article1 3(2).Thei nclusivedef i
nitioni nAr ticle1 3(3)( a)makesnoment ionof
const i
tuti
onal amendment s.

Source:
Book:YANI
VROZNAI
:UNCONSTITUTI
ONALCONSTI TUTI
ONAL
AMENDMENTS(OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESS,201
7)

CHAPTER:I
MPLI
CITCONSTI
TUTI
ONALUNAMENDABI
LITY

TheI
ndi
an‘Basi
cSt
ruct
ureDoct
ri
ne

TheI ndi
anConst it
utionlacksanyunamendabl eprovisi
ons.Also,Indianjur i
sprudence,
rootedinBr i
ti
sht raditi
on,initi
all
yrej ectedthenot ionofi mplici
tunamendabi li
ty.That
positi
on,however ,wasr evisedint he1 960sand1 970sf oll
owingPr imeMi ni
sterIndira
Gandhi ’sfar-reachi ngat t
empt stoamendt heconst i
tuti
on,leadi
ngevent uall
ytot he
j
udicialdevel
opmentoft he‘Basi cSt ruct
ureDoct r
ine’.Accor dingt ot hisdoct r
ine,
the amendmentpoweri s notunl imi t
ed;rather,itdoesnoti nclude the powert o
abrogateorchanget heident i
tyoft heconst i
tuti
onori tsbasicfeatures.
17T hi
sdoct rine
wasused sever altimesbyt he Indi an Supreme Cour ttoreview,and even annul ,
constit
uti
onalamendment s.

Sincemuchhasbeenwr it
tenont hisdoctr
ineandi t
sdevelopment ,
18onl
yar elati
vely
briefaccountoft heeventswillbegivenhere.Eventsl
eadi
ngt othedevelopmentoft he
‘Basi cStruct
ureDoctrine’ begani ntheear l
ydaysoft heIndianrepubli
cwhent he
gover nmentat tempted to pursue vastland ref
ormswhi ch affect
ed landowner s’
const i
tut
ionalrightto property.
19Faci
ng a chall
enge tothe FirstAmendmentt hat
abr i
dgedt herighttoproper t
y,theSupr emeCour theldi
n1 951inShankar iPrasadv.
I
ndi athatfundamentalrightswerenotbeyondr eachoftheamendmentpower .
20

Further
more,i
n1 nSaj
965,i j
anSi nghv.StateofRajast
han,facingachall
engetot
he
Seventeent
hAmendment ,t
hemaj ori
tyoftheSupremeCour treject
edanargument
thatamendmentscannotvi
olat
ef undamentalr
ight
s.Withtwojudgesdissent
ingf
rom
t
hisvi
ew,anot
herchal
l
engewasbr
oughtbef
oreal
argebenchofel
evenj
udgesi
n1967
nGol
i aknat
hv.Stat
eofPunj
ab.

Aggr i
evedbyt heimpactofl andreforml egislati
on,severalli
ti
gantsledwr itpeti
tionsi n
theSupr emeCour t.Theycl aimedt hatsuchl egi sl
ati
on,alongwi t
hcer tai
nconstituti
onal
amendment sthatpr ot
ect edt helegi
slati
on,shoul dbest r
uckdownf orbreachingt heir
fundament alr
ights.Ont hisoccasion,byat hinmaj ori
tyof6t o5,t heSupr emeCour t
heldt hatconstit
utionalamendment swer e‘l aw’ wi t
hinthepur vi
ew ofAr ti
cle1 3(2),
effectivelyrendering the f undament alr i
ght s chapteroft he Const it
uti
on inviolate.
However ,theCour tappl i
edt hedoct ri
neof‘pr ospecti
veover rul
i
ng’ t osof tent he
blow,and avoi dt he disruption t
hatt heyexpect ed wouldf oll
ow t he i
nvali
dation of
exist
ingconst i
tuti
onal amendment sandt hest atutesonwhi chtheywer ebased.

Overrul
i
ng its pr
evious deci
sions,t
he maj or
ity ofthe court(sixt
of i
ve)hel dthat
Parl
iament’spowert o amend the const
it
ution coul
d notbe used to abri
dge the
fundamentalri
ghts,si
nceanamendmentwasdeemedt obea‘l aw’ underArti
cle13
whichprohibi
tedParli
amentfrom makinganyl aw abri
dgingfundamental
right
s.

Notwithstandi
ngthefactt
hattheCourtdeli
ver
edapr ospecti
vejudgmentanddidnot
i
nvali
dat etheamendment si
nquest i
on,thi
sjudgmentt r
iggeredapowerfulpol
it
ical
r
eactionandsi gni
fi
edtheopeningshotofa‘gr eatwar… overpar l
i
amentar
yversus
j
udici
al supremacy’.

One not
ewor t
hyel ementoft he case wasthe i
ntroduct
ion i
nthe heari
ngsoft he
‘basicstr
ucture’ concept;t
hiswasdonebyM.K.Nambyar ,oneofthecounsel
sfor
t
he peti
ti
onerint he Golaknath case,who was infl
uenced by Di
etri
ch Conr
ad,a
Ger
manpr ofessorwhowasanexper tonSout
hAsianl aw.

I
nFebr uary1 965,Conr advi sitedIndiaanddel i
veredal ectureon‘i mpli
edlimitations
oftheamendi ngpower ’ t ot helaw f acult
yofBanar asHi nduUni ver
sit
y.Thepaper
uponwhi cht hel ecturewasbasedwasbr oughtt otheat tentionofNambyar ,who,i n
October1 966,asked Conr ad’sper mi ssi
ont o usehi slect ure’smanuscr i
ptwhen
arguingbef oretheSupr emeCour t
.Itissaidt hatConrad‘r eadi lyandent husiasticall
y
agreed’,st i
pulati
ng‘t hatt hewhol emanuscr iptmaybepr esent edtot heCour t’.
Based upon Conr ad’s paper , Nambyar made one of t he most si gni fi
cant
contribut i
onst oconst it
ut i
onall aw i
nar gui
ngbef oretheSupr emeCour tthatimpl ied
l
imitationsexi stont heamendmentpowersot hatamendment scannotdest royt he
permanentchar acteror‘basi cstructure’ oft heConst itution.25 I
nit
sdeci sion,t he
Cour tst atedt hat‘t herei sconsider ableforceint hi
sar gument ’;however ,focusi ng
i
tsat tent i
onont henar rowerquest i
onoft hescopeoft heamendmentpowervi s-à-
vi
sf undament alrights,i twasdeemed unnecessar yf ort he Cour tt
o expr essany
opinioni nt hatregar d.

As a consequence oft he Gol aknat

h case,I ndira Gandhisoughtt or e- est abl
ish
parl
iament arysover ei
gnty.Inlightoft hepol it
icaldesiref orsoci alref
or ms,andaf ter
Gandhi ’scongr esspar tywon t wo-t hirdsofPar li
ament ’sseat sint he el ecti
on,
Parl
iamentpassedt heTwent y-f our
thandTwent y-f i
fthAmendment si n1 971.The
Twent y-fourthAmendmental l
owedPar l
iament ,inexerciseofi tsconstituentpower ,to
amend,bywayofaddi t
ion,var i
ati
on,orr epeal ,anypr ovisi
on oft he Const i
tuti
on,
i
ncludingt hosepr otect
ingf undament alrights;theTwent y-f if
thAmendmental l
owed
propertyreforms.Theseamendment swer echal lengedbef oret hi
rt
eenj udgesoft he
SupremeCour ti
n1 973inKesavanandaBhar at iv.StateofKer ala.TheSupr emeCour t
overruled Golaknath,holding thatthet erm ‘l aw’ doesnotr ef
erto const i
tuti
onal
amendment s;hence,Par l
iamentcan amend any par toft he Const i
tution.Mor e
i
mpor tantl
y,sevenoft hejudgeshel dthattheamendmentpowerdi dnoti ncludet he
powert oal t
erthebasi cstructureorf r
amewor koft heConst i
tuti
onsoast ochangei ts
i
dentit
y,cr eati
ngwhathascomet obeknownt he‘Basi cSt ructureDoct r
ine’.The
othersixjudgesdissent ed,arguingt hatal
lpartsoft heConst i
tutionhaveequalst at us
and,thus,allcanbeamended.TheKesavanandacasedi dnotpr ovideapr eciselistof
unamendabl efeaturest hatmade up t he Constit
ution’sbasi c str
ucture;rather ,it
formedasor tofcommon-l aw doct ri
nethatdevel opedonacase-bycasebasi s.
Some oft he judges,however ,of f
ered examples ofsuch f eatures,such as t he
supremacy oft he Const itut
ion,t he democr at
icf orm ofgover nment,cr eated a
‘const i
tuti
onalquicksand’ andadayaf terthejudgmentwasannounced,af urious
Indi
raGandhiappoi ntedanew Chi efJusti
ceupont her et
irementofChi efJusti
ceSi kri
.
However ,insteadofappoi nti
ngt hemostseni orjudge,aswast heaccept edcust om,
Gandhi appointedJust i
ceRay,t hemostseni ormemberoft hemi norit
yjudges.

Yett hiswasmer elyt hebegi nni ng.I nJune1 975,aHi ghCour tinvalidat edGandhi ’s
1971el ecti
onduet oel ectoralf raud,bar ri
ngherf rom el ect i
onsf orsi xyear s.Gandhi
react ed by pr ocl aimi ng a st ate ofemer gency,af terwhi ch Par li
amentused i t
s
amendmentpowert oenactt woast oni shingamendment s:theThi rty-ei ght handThi rt
y
- ni nth Amendment s.The Thi rt
y- ei ghth Amendmentst ated t hatt he Pr esident’s
deci siont oissueaPr ocl
amat ionofEmer gency,and anyl awsadopt ed dur ing thi
s
emer gency,wer ei mmunef rom j udi ci
alr evi ew.TheThi r
ty-ni nth Amendmentt hen
altered,r et
roact i
vely,t hel awsunderwhi chGandhiwasconvi ctedandpr ohibitedany
cour tf rom adjudi catinganyi ssueont heel ect i
onoft hePr esident ,Vi ce-Pr esi
dent ,
Par l
iamentSpeaker ,andPr imeMi nister,eveni fsuchamat terwasal readypendi ng
bef oreacour t.30 Ther eafter,Gandhi ’sappealcamebef oret heSupr emeCour t.In
1975,i nIndiraNehr uGandhiv.RajNar ai
n,f ivej udgesunani mousl yconf irmed t he
‘Basi cSt ruct
ur eDoct ri
ne’.Wher east heCour tvalidat edGandhi ’sel ectionint he
1971el ecti
on,ithel dt hatbyexcl udi ngj udi cialr eview,t heThi rty-ni nt hAmendment
violatedt hreeessent ialfeaturesoft heconst itutionalsyst em— namel y,f airdemocr ati
c
elect i
ons,equal it
y,andsepar ationofpower s— andt her eforewasi nvalid.

I
n1 976,inanef fortt oputanendt oj udicialintervention,Par l
iamentr etali
atedand
enact edtheFor ty-secondAmendment ,whi chwascomposedoff i
fty-ni nesect i
ons.
Amongot hert hi
ngs,t hisAmendmentdecl ar
edi nsect i
on55t hat‘Noamendmentof
thi
sConst i
tution… shal lbecalledinquest i
oni nanycour tonanygr ound’,and‘f or
ther emovalofdoubt s,i tisherebydecl aredt hatt hereshal lbenol imitationwhat ever
ont he constituentpowerofPar l
iamentt o amend bywayofaddi ti
on,var i
ation or
repealt hepr ovisionsoft hi
sConst i
tuti
on’.I nt he1 977el ecti
ons,Gandhi ’spar tylost
tot heJanat apar ty.TheJanat apar tyreducedt hegover nment ’spower sdur ingt he
emer gency,butwasunabl etor everset heFor ty-second Amendment ’ssect ions
deal i
ng wi t
h Par l
iament ’s absolute amendmentpower .AfterGandhir eturned t o
poweri n1979,t heFor ty-secondAmendmentwaschal l
engedont hegr oundst hatit
dest royedthebasi cst ructureoft heConst i
tuti
on.I n1 980,f ourmont hsaf t
erGandhi
returnedt opower ,fiveSupr emeCour tj
udgeshel dunanimousl yinMi nervaMi ll
sLt d.v.
UnionofI ndiat hatsi ncesect ion55oft heFor ty-secondAmendmentr emovedal l
l
imi t
at i
ons on Par li
ament ’s amendmentpower ,confer ri
ng upon i tt he powert o
dest roy t
he Const i
tution’s essent i
alf eatures orbasi c str
ucture,i twas beyond
Par l
iament ’sl imitedamendmentpowerandt her eforevoi d:
SincetheConsti
tut
ionhadconferredalimit
edamendi ngpoweront heParli
ament,
theParli
amentcannotundertheexerciseoft
hatlimitedpowerenl ar
gethatvery
powerintoanabsolut
epower… Par li
amentcannot ,underArti
cle368,expand
itsamendingpowersoast oacquireforit
sel
ftherighttorepealorabrogatet
he
Consti
tuti
onortodestroyi
tsbasi
candessent i
alfeatures.Thedoneeofal i
mited
powercannotbyt heexerci
seofthatpowerconvertthelimitedpowerintoanunlimit
edone.
.
 TheSupr
emeCour
texpl
ainedt
hat
i
fbyconsti
tut
ionalamendment ,Parl
iamentwer egr
antedunli
mitedpower
ofamendment,itwouldceaset obeanaut hor
ityundertheConsti
tuti
on,but
wouldbecomesupr emeoveri t,becauseitwoul
dhavepowert oaltertheenti
re
Consti
tut
ioni
ncludi
ngitsbasicstruct
ureandevent oputanendt oitbytotal
l
y
changingitsi
denti
ty.
I
nthewor dsofJust
iceChandrachud:‘thethemesongof… KesavanandaBhar at
iis:
Amend asyou mayeven t he sol
emn documentwhi ch t
he foundi
ng fathershave
committ
edt oyourcare,foryouknow bestt heneedsofyourgener at
ion.But,the
Const
it
uti
onisapreciousher
it
age;ther
efor
e,youcannotdestr
oyitsi
denti
ty’.34

SinceMi ner vaMi l

ls,t he‘Basi cSt ructureDoct ri
ne’ hasbeenaccept edandappl ied
i
nvar iousot hercases,andi snow anest abli
shedconst i
tutionalpr i
nciplei nIndia.35 I
t
now includesgener alf eaturesofal i
beraldemocr acy,suchast hesupr emacyoft he
Constitut
ion, t he r ule of l aw, separ at i
on of power s, judicial review, j udicial
i
ndependence,human di gni ty,nat ionaluni tyand i ntegrit
y,f ree and f airelect i
ons,
federali
sm,andsecul ari
sm. 36 Thisdoct r
ineat t
empt st oident if
yt hephi losophyupon
whichaconst ituti
oni sbased. 37B efor eexplicat
ingthet heor ysuppor ti
veoft hi
sdoct r
ine,
however ,t he mi grat i
on ofi mplicitunamendabi l
it
yt hr
ough di f
ferentj urisdicti
ons,
progressingt owar dsbecomi ngar ecogni zeddoct ri
nei ngl obalconst it
utionalism,wi l
l
bedi scussed. 38 Thisi sfollowedbyi l
l
ustrati
ont hatt he‘Basi cSt r
uctureDoct r
ine’
rests on sol idt heor eti
calgr ound and i si n accordance wi tht he gener alt heor y
advancedi nt hiswor k,accor dingt owhi cht heamendmentpoweri sinherent l
ylimited
i
nscope.

I
nt hel astthreedecades,t hecour thaswi denedt hescopeoft hedoct ri
net o
i
ncludeawi der angeofst ateaction:execut ivepr oclamat i
onofnat ionaland
regionalemer gency,andor di
narylegi sl
ationandexecut i
veact ionbyt hosei n
thehigherel ectedandt helowerunel ectedexecut i
veaut hor i
ty.InKesavananda
the Supr eme Cour tused the basic st ructure doct ri
ne fort he f ir
stt i
me t o
subjectconst it
utionalamendment st oj udicialrevi ew.Si nce thatr uli
ng,t he
doct r
ine has been used by t he Supr eme Cour ti n sever alsignif
icant
constitut
ionallaw casesnotal lofwhi chr elatetoconst i
tutionalamendment s.
Thisexpansi oni nt hescopeandappl icati
onoft hedoct rinehasbeenei ther
i
gnor edorchar acteri
zedasami stakenappl icati
onoft hedoct ri
ne.Sat herefer s
to caseswher e basic st
ructurer eview i sappl ied and wher e consti
tut
ional
amendment sar enotbei ngchallengedandnot es:

Theseutt
erancesar emadebyi ndivi
dualjudgesint
hej udgementsand
cannotbecalledevenobiterdi
cta.TheyarenotdecisionsoftheCour t
.A
decisi
onstri
ctlyspeaki
ngcomesonl ywhenaconst i
tuti
onalamendment
enactedbyPar li
amentischall
engedi ncourtonthegroundofi t
sal
leged
violat
ionofthebasicstr
uctureoftheConstit
ution.
By conf i
ning the appl i
cati
on of basi c struct
urer eview t o consti
tut
ional
amendment s,Sat
hel abelsallotherappl i
cati
onsoft hedoct rineasami stake.
The fail
uret or ecognize the evolution of basi c struct
urer eview as an
i
ndependentand di stincttype ofjudicialreview thatappl i
est o stat
e acti
on
general
lyhasdepr ivedt heexistingl
it
er atur
eofacr i
ticalandusef ulvantage
pointfr
om whi chtoassesst hecour t
’sappl icati
onoft hedoctri
nei nthelater
cases.