Basic Structure Doctorine (Constitution of India)

Basic Structure Doctorine (Constitution Of India)

The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament. Key among these "basic features", are the fundamental rights granted to individuals by the constitution. The doctrine thus forms the basis of a limited power of the Indian Supreme Court to review and strike down constitutional amendments enacted by the parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this "basic structure" of the constitution.

The "basic features" principle was first expounded by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his dissent in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (case citation: 1965 AIR 845, 1965 SCR (1) 933).

"It is also a matter for consideration whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Art. 368 ?"

By 1973, the basic structure doctrine triumphed in Justice Hans Raj Khanna's judgment in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (case citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461). Previously, the Supreme Court had held that the power of parliament to amend the constitution was unfettered. However, in this landmark ruling, the court adjudicated that while parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution.

Although Kesavananda was decided by a narrow margin of 7-6, the basic structure doctrine has since gained widespread acceptance and legitimacy due to subsequent cases and judgments. Primary among these was the imposition of a state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975, and her subsequent attempt to suppress her prosecution through the 39th Amendment. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived as unprecedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amendment by the Indian National Congress' majority in central and state legislatures, proved that in fact such apprehension was well-founded. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th amendment and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy.

The basic structure doctrine applies only to constitutional amendments. It does not apply to ordinary acts of parliament, which must conform to the entirety of the constitution; not just to its "basic structure".

Read more about Basic Structure Doctorine (Constitution Of India):  Background, The Kesavananda Case (1973), The Emergency (1975), Evolution of The Doctrine

Famous quotes containing the words basic and/or structure:

    Surrealism is not a school of poetry but a movement of liberation.... A way of rediscovering the language of innocence, a renewal of the primordial pact, poetry is the basic text, the foundation of the human order. Surrealism is revolutionary because it is a return to the beginning of all beginnings.
    Octavio Paz (b. 1914)

    Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.
    Paul Tillich (1886–1965)