Basic structure of the

case raised a big question about whether the government could still change or remove these
Fundamental Rights. This case was about the Seventeenth Amendment Act of 1964, which included
certain state laws in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

constitution
2. The Golak Nath Case (1967)
In the Golak Nath case, the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act was challenged. The main issue
was whether the government had the power to change or take away Fundamental Rights through
constitutional amendments.
EMERGENCE OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE 3. Fundamental Rights as 'Transcendental and Immutable'

1.SHANKARI PRASAD CASE (1951) In this case, the Supreme Court changed its earlier decision. It said that Fundamental Rights were
incredibly important and couldn't be changed. The Court called them 'transcendental and immutable,'
1. Background: When India's Constitution was first created in 1950, there was a question about which means they were very special and couldn't be touched.
whether the government could change the important rights it promised to its citizens. This question
came up when the government wanted to make a law in 1951 that would limit people's right to own 4. Constitutional Amendment Acts as 'Laws' Under Article 13
property. The Court also said that a constitutional amendment act is considered a law according to Article 13 of
the Constitution. This meant that these special laws had to follow the same rules as regular laws.
2. The Shankari Prasad Case (1951): In the Shankari Prasad case, the government's plan to limit
property rights was challenged in court. The main issue was whether the government had the power 5. Fundamental Rights Cannot Be Changed
to change or remove these important rights through a special process mentioned in the Constitution ,
called Article 368. In short, the Golak Nath case decided that the government couldn't change or take away any of the
Fundamental Rights because they were too important and couldn't be altered. The Court also said that
3. Parliament's Authority to Change the Constitution: The Supreme Court, in this case, decided even constitutional amendment acts were considered laws and must follow the rules of the
that the government indeed had the power to change the Constitution using Article 368. This power Constitution. If these amendment acts broke Fundamental Rights, they would be considered invalid.
included the ability to change or remove these important rights, known as Fundamental Rights.
6. Conclusion
4. Understanding "Law" in Article 13: To reach this decision, the Court looked at Article 13 in the
Constitution, which says that any law that goes against Fundamental Rights will be considered invalid. So, in simple terms, the Golak Nath case reversed the earlier decision in Shankari Prasad. It said that
But the Court clarified that the term 'law' in Article 13 only referred to regular laws ma de by the Fundamental Rights were extremely important and couldn't be changed by the government through
government, not the special laws that change the Constitution. constitutional amendments. The Court also made clear that constitutional amendment acts were just
like regular laws and would be canceled if they violated Fundamental Rights. This case restricted the
5. Special Laws to Change the Constitution: The Court said that regular laws couldn't break the government's power to change the Constitution regarding Fundamental Rights.
important rights of the citizens, but the government could change or remove these rights using a • Parliament's Reaction: After the Supreme Court said in the Golak Nath case that the government can't
special process for changing the Constitution. These special laws were not considered the same as change or take away Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments, the Parliament decided to
regular laws. respond.
• The 24th Amendment Act (1971): To address this, the government passed the 24th Amendment Act in
6. Conclusion: So, in simple terms, the Shankari Prasad case established that the government could 1971. This act made changes to two key parts of the Constitution: Articles 13 and 368.
change or remove Fundamental Rights by following the special rules mentioned in Article 368. The • Parliament's Power to Modify Fundamental Rights: The 24th Amendment Act basically said that the
term 'law' in Article 13 didn't include these special laws, so changing th ese important rights through Parliament does have the power to change or remove Fundamental Rights by using Article 368 in the
this process was allowed and considered valid. This case clarified how much power the government Constitution. In other words, it gave the government the ability to make amendments that affect these
had to change the Constitution, even when it came to Fundamental Rights. important rights.
• These Changes Aren't Like Regular Laws: Additionally, the Act clarified that when the Parliament
makes changes to Fundamental Rights using Article 368, these changes wouldn't be treated like regular
laws under Article 13. This means that even if these changes affect Fundamental Rights, they won't be
considered invalid, as is the case with regular laws that violate Fundamental Rights.
• In Simple Terms: So, the 24th Amendment Act allowed the government to have more control over
changing Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments, and it ensured that these changes
wouldn't be treated as invalid, unlike regular laws that breach Fundamental Rights . This clarified the
2. The Golak Nath Case (1967) government's power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

1. Background 3.The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

After the Shankari Prasad case allowed the government to change Fundamental Rights using 1. The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
constitutional amendments, there was a change in the Supreme Court's view. In 1967, the Golak Nath
The Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 was a significant legal case in India. It brought a major change that change was not allowed. This case reinforced the idea that certain parts of the Constitution are
in the interpretation of the Constitution. untouchable, even by the government's amending power.
2. Reversing Golak Nath Case: The Supreme Court decided to change its previous decision made in
the Golak Nath case. Golak Nath had said that the government can't change or remove Fundamental • Parliament's Response to 'Basic Structure' Doctrine: After the Supreme Court introduced the idea of
Rights using constitutional amendments. 'basic structure,' the Parliament wanted to respond.
• The 42nd Amendment Act (1976): To address this, the government passed the 42nd Amendment Act in
3. Upholding the 24th Amendment Act: In Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court agreed that the
1976. This act made changes to Article 368 of the Constitution.
24th Amendment Act, which gave the Parliament more power to change Fundamental Rights, was
• Parliament's Assertion of Unlimited Power: The 42nd Amendment Act declared that the Parliament's
okay. This meant that the Parliament could make changes to Fundamental Rights using Article 368 of power to change the Constitution was not limited. In other words, it said that there were no restrictions on
the Constitution. what changes the government could make.
4. Introducing the 'Basic Structure' Idea: This case introduced a new concept called the 'basic • No Right to Challenge Amendments: This act also said that no one could challenge or question any
structure' of the Constitution. It means there are certain fundamental features of the Constitution that amendment made by the Parliament in any court. This includes amendments that might go against
the Parliament can't change using its power to amend the Constitution. Fundamental Rights.
• In Simple Terms: So, with the 42nd Amendment Act, the government essentially said that it had the
5. Limit on Parliament's Power: So, even though the Parliament can make changes to the ultimate power to amend the Constitution, and no one could question or challenge those changes in any
Constitution, it can't touch the 'basic structure.' This means the Parliament can't change or take away court, even if they affected Fundamental Rights. This was the government's way of asserting its authority
Fundamental Rights that are considered part of this 'basic structure.' to change the Constitution without limitations.

6. In Simple Terms: In Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court said the government could change
Fundamental Rights using the 24th Amendment Act, but it also said there are some really important
parts of the Constitution, called the 'basic structure,' that the Parliament can't touch. This puts a limit
on the Parliament's power to change the Constitution, especially when it comes to Fundamental
Rights that are part of this 'basic structure.'

5.The Minerva Mills Case (1980):

1. The Minerva Mills Case (1980): In this legal case in 1980, the Supreme Court had to decide on a
provision in the 42nd Amendment Act, which was passed by the government to limit judicial review.
2. What the 42nd Amendment Act Did: The 42nd Amendment Act said that no one could challenge
4. The Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975): or question any changes made by the government to the Constitution, even if they went against
1. The Doctrine of Basic Structure: This is an important idea in India that says there are some core Fundamental Rights.
elements of the Constitution that can't be changed or removed by the government, even if they use the
3. Why the Court Said No: The Supreme Court looked at this and said it's not allowed because it goes
special process for amending the Constitution.
against the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. In other words, it interferes with one of the
2. The Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975): In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 'basic fundamental principles of the Constitution, which is the ability to review and ques tion government
structure' idea. It had to decide if a change made by the government in the 39th Amendment Act actions in court.
(1975) was allowed.
4. Applying the 'Basic Structure' Doctrine: The Court used the 'basic structure' idea, which means
3. What the 39th Amendment Act Did: The 39th Amendment Act said that certain legal disputes that some core principles of the Constitution cannot be messed with. In this case, it said that Article
related to the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha couldn't be taken to any court. In other 368, which deals with amending the Constitution, can't be used to eliminate judicial review.
words, it protected these politicians from legal challenges.
5. In Simple Terms: So, in the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court said no to the 42nd Amendment
4. Why the Court Said No: The Supreme Court looked at this change and said it was against the 'basic Act because it tried to stop people from questioning government actions in court, and that goes
structure' of the Constitution. In simple terms, it went against the core values and principles that the against a key principle of the Constitution. This case reinforced the 'basic str ucture' concept, which
Constitution is built upon. protects certain important aspects of the Constitution from being changed or removed.

5. Invalidating the Change: So, the Court decided that this change made by the government wasn't
allowed because it affected the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Therefore, the change was not • 1. Limited Amending Power: The statement is talking about the power given to the Indian Parliament to
valid. make changes or amendments to the Constitution.
• 2. Expanding a Limited Power: It says that the Parliament cannot use this limited power to make it
6. In Simple Terms: In the Indira Nehru Gandhi case, the Supreme Court used the 'basic structure' unlimited or absolute. In other words, it can't use its amending power to give itself unlimited control over
idea to say that the government couldn't make a change that protected the Prime Minister and the Constitution.
Speaker from legal challenges because it went against the core values of the Constitution. Therefore,
 • 3. Importance of Limited Power: The statement also emphasizes that this limited amending power is one • 3.Secular Character-The Constitution promotes a secular state, which means it treats all
of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. It's a basic feature that can't be changed. religions equally and does not favor any particular religion.
• 4. Preserving Limitations: The limitations placed on this power cannot be removed or destroyed. The • 4.Separation of Powers-There's a clear division of responsibilities between the legislature
Parliament must always operate within the limits set by the Constitution. (making laws), the executive (implementing laws), and the judiciary (interpreting laws and
• 5. No Right to Repeal or Destroy: The Parliament cannot, through Article 368 (the amending provision in ensuring justice).
the Constitution), make changes that allow it to completely get rid of or damage the Constitution or its • 5.Federal Character-The Constitution establishes a federal system, where there's a division of
basic principles. power between the central government and state governments.
• 6. Limited Power Stays Limited: In simple terms, the message here is that the Parliament, even though it • 6.Unity and Integrity-The Constitution aims to maintain the unity and integrity of the nation.
has some power to make changes to the Constitution, cannot use that power to become all-powerful. The
• 7.Welfare State-The Constitution promotes socio-economic justice and the welfare of the
limitations on this power are vital, and it cannot be used to repeal the Constitution or damage its
fundamental aspects. In essence, a limited power remains limited; it cannot be turned into an unlimited people.
one through its exercise. • 8.Judicial Review - The judiciary has the power to review and potentially overturn actions of
the government that violate the Constitution.
• 9. Individual Freedom and Dignity - Protecting the rights and dignity of every citizen is a
fundamental principle.
• 10. Parliamentary System - India follows a parliamentary system of government with elected
representatives.
6. The Waman Rao Case (1981) • 11.Rule of Law - Everyone, including the government, must follow the law.
1. The Waman Rao Case (1981): This is a legal case in 1981 where the Supreme Court made an • 12.Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles - There should be a
important decision about the Constitution. balance between the rights of individuals and the principles for the welfare of society.
• 13.Principle of Equality - Everyone is equal before the law, and there should be no
2. Supporting the 'Basic Structure' Idea: In this case, the Supreme Court continued to support the discrimination.
idea of the 'basic structure.' This means there are some very important principles in the Constitution • 14.Free and Fair Elections - Elections should be conducted freely and fairly.
that can't be changed. • 15.Independence of Judiciary - The judiciary should be independent of the executive and
3. Adding Clarity: The Court also said that this 'basic structure' concept would apply to changes made legislative branches.
in the Constitution after April 24, 1973. • 16.Limited Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution - The Parliament's power to
amend the Constitution is not unlimited.
4. Why April 24, 1973? This is when the Kesavananda Bharati case, which first introduced the 'basic • 17. Access to Justice - Everyone should have effective access to justice.
structure' idea, was decided. So, the Waman Rao case clarified that the 'basic structure' idea would • 18. Principles Underlying Fundamental Rights - The principles and values behind the
protect the Constitution from being changed through amendments made after tha t date. Fundamental Rights are essential.
5. In Simple Terms: In the Waman Rao case, the Supreme Court said the 'basic structure' concept is • 19.Powers of the Supreme Court (under art.32, 136,141,142) and High Courts(226
still important, and it applies to changes made in the Constitution after April 24, 1973. This means and227) - The Constitution gives certain powers to the Supreme Court and High Courts to
that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution cannot be altered, even through amendments protect and enforce fundamental rights and ensure justice.
made after that date. In Simple Terms: These are the key aspects that make up the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
The Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot change these fundamental elements. These
principles ensure that India remains a democratic, fair, and just society.
ELEMENTS OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE
Amending the Constitution -The Parliament can make changes to the Constitution using Article the cases and their associated elements of the basic structure of the
368, but it must not affect the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. However, what exactly makes up
the 'basic structure' has not been fully defined by the Supreme Court. Constitution:
Basic Features of the Constitution -From various court judgments, certain elements or 'basic 1. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):
features' of the Constitution have emerged, which the Parliament cannot change through • Supremacy of the Constitution
amendments: • Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
• 1.Supremacy of the Constitution-The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all • Republic and democratic form of government
laws and authorities must follow it. • Secular character of the constitution
• 2.Democratic and Republic Nature-India is a democracy, meaning the people have a say in • Federal character of the constitution
how the country is run, and it's a republic with elected leaders. • Sovereignty and unity of India
• Freedom and dignity of the individual
 • Mandate to build a welfare state 13. S.R. Bommai Case (1994):
• Parliamentary System
• Federalism
• Secularism
• Democracy
• Unity and integrity of the nation
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975):
• Social justice
• India as a sovereign democratic republic • Judicial review
• Equality of status and opportunity of an individual 14. L. Chandra Kumar Case (1997):
• Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion
• Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
• Government of laws and not of men (i.e., Rule of Law)
15. Indra Sawhney II Case (2000):
• Judicial review
• Free and fair elections implied in democracy • Principle of equality
3. Minerva Mills Case (1980): 16. All India Judge’s Association Case (2002):

• Limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution • Independent judicial system

• Judicial review 17. Kuldip Nayar Case (2006):
• Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles
• Democracy
4. Central Coal Fields Ltd. Case (1980):
• Free and fair elections
• Effective access to justice 18. M. Nagaraj Case (2006):
5. Bhim Singhji Case (1981):
• Principle of equality
• Welfare State (Socioeconomic justice) 19. I.R. Coelho Case (2007):
6. S.P. Sampath Kumar Case (1987):
• Rule of law
• Rule of law • Separation of powers
• Judicial review • Principles (or essence) underlying fundamental rights
7. P. Sambamurthy Case (1987): • Judicial review
• Principle of equality
• Rule of law
20. Ram Jethmalani Case (2011):
• Judicial review
8. Delhi Judicial Service Association Case (1991): • Powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32
21. Namit Sharma Case (2013):
• Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, and 142
9. Indra Sawhney Case (1992): • Freedom and dignity of the individual
22. Madras Bar Association Case (2014):
• Rule of law
10. Kumar Padma Prasad Case (1992): - Independence of judiciary • Judicial review
• Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
11. Kihoto Hollohon Case (1993):
These cases and their associated elements collectively define the 'basic structure' of the Indian
• Free and fair elections Constitution, which cannot be altered through constitutional amendments.
• Sovereign, democratic, republican structure
12. Raghunath Rao Case (1993):
• Principle of equality
• Unity and integrity of India