Scribd
Upload
2 views9 pages

The Basic Structure Doctrine 2024

The document discusses the Basic Structure Doctrine (DBS) in constitutional law, highlighting its origins in Indian jurisprudence and its implications for parliamentary power. It outlines key cases, such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which established that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to alter its fundamental features. Additionally, it examines the reception of the DBS in Malaysian courts and its recognition in various legal rulings.

Uploaded by

2024537939
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views9 pages

The Basic Structure Doctrine 2024

The document discusses the Basic Structure Doctrine (DBS) in constitutional law, highlighting its origins in Indian jurisprudence and its implications for parliamentary power. It outlines key cases, such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which established that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to alter its fundamental features. Additionally, it examines the reception of the DBS in Malaysian courts and its recognition in various legal rulings.

Uploaded by

2024537939
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

Th e B a s i c

S t r u c t u re
c t r i n e ( D B S )
Do l d u
o r a z l i n a A b
D r. N
Aziz
Wh a t i s D B S ?
ro v i d es t h a t
e p at p
r i n c i p l e t h
Th t i o n o n
i m p l i e d l i m i t a
there i s a n
f P a r l i a m e n t i n
t h e p o w e r o
co n s t i t u t i o n i s
am e n d i n g t h e
t h e “ d o c t r i n e
l l y r e fe r re d t o
us ua ”
s i c s t r u c t u r e
of ba
Kesavananda Singh
Sajjan Singh case By 1973, the basic structure doctrine triumphed
The "basic features" in Justice Hans Raj Khanna's judgment in the
principle was first landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v.
expounded in 1964, State of Kerala.Previously, the Supreme Court
had held that the power of Parliament to amend
by Justice J.R.
the Constitution was unfettered.However, in this
Mudholkar in his
landmark ruling, the Court adjudicated that
dissent, in the case
while Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not
of Sajjan Singh v.
have the power to destroy or emasculate the
State of Rajasthan. basic elements or fundamental features of the
I.C. Golaknath and
Ors v State of Punjab
and Anors (1967) AIR
All constitutional amendments
thus far which were in
contravention or which had made
an exception to the fundamental
rights chapter of the Constitution
were said to be void.
In short, the Supreme Court ruled
that the Parliament could not
amend the Constitution of India
to curtail the fundamental rights
in the Constitution.
Malaysia
STANCE LOH KOOI RAJA AZLAN PHANG
Initially, this doctrine is CHOON SHAH J. CHIN HOCK
rejected by the The wording of the After examining the various
methods laid in the Constitution
affirmed the
Malaysian courts. The Federal Constitution, that
general reasons this is in Article 159 to amend it, said that decision in
doctrine was rejected concerning amendments fundamental rights, which are Loh Kooi
include that the Federal to the Constitution, is different from ordinary rights,
can only be amended in specially
Choon.
Constitution and the such that the Article only
Constitution of India prescribes procedures for prescribed ways. His Lordship
have many differences the passing of the proceeded to say that the
amendments in the framers of the Constitution only
Parliament. Loh Kooi intended to prevent fundamental
Choon v Government of rights from being affected by
DBS
Phang Chin
Hock(1980)
Development inSemenyih
Jaya(2017)
Judicial power, judicial
Malaysia
Even if the amendments
made by Parliament in
Sivarasa
Rasiah(2010)
independence and
accordance with article Federal Court, Gopal doctrine of Separation
159 may be inconsistent Sri Ram FCJ approved of power are
with the existing provisions this argument's merit, sacrosanct in our
of the Constitution, the and said that the way constitution
court should read into the the Federal
Constitution implied Constitution was
limitations on the powerof construed meant that
Parliament to destroy the there was a basic
basic structure of the structure.
Constitution
Cases that
accepts
INDIRA GANDHI
DBS ALMA NUDO
MUTHO(2018)
The apex court confirmed the ThisATENZA(2019)
court has, on several
existence of DBS in our occasions, recognised that the
constitution. The ct also principle of separation of
defined DBS as elements of powers, and the power of the
constitution that forms its basic ordinary courts to review the
structure and cannot be legality of State action, are
legislated away. sacrosanct and form part of the
basic structure of the FC
Rejecting DBS
Rovin Jothy
2021
Historically, and textually, there was nothing in the FC to indicate
which provision constituted the basic structure and hence,
unamendable or to remain as an eternity clause. Accordingly, the basic
structure doctrine was not applicable in construing the constitutionality
of s 15B (1) POCA in view of art 159 FC.
Thank You

You might also like