EVOLUTION AND EXPANSION OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE POST-KESHAVANANDA BHARATI CASE

Ankita Priyadarshini Nayak, Student, National Law University Odisha

INTRODUCTION

The Basic Structure Doctrine safeguards the fundamental and core principles enshrined in the Constitution. It preserves the constitutional identity and ensures that the provisions of the Constitution are not amended arbitrarily by any party. The basic structure stands as the cornerstone of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence and prevents the erosion of the foundational principles. The doctrine has evolved through various judgements but was crystallized in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973. In this judgement, the Supreme Court (hereinafter “SC”) held that while the Parliament has wide amending power, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, this doctrine serves as a balance between the flexibility and rigidity of the Constitution. It checks on the absolute amending power of the Parliament while also safeguarding the interests of the citizens of India. 

BACKGROUND OF THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE

The case of Kesavananda Bharati can be traced back to the land reforms initiated in Kerala during the 1950s and 1960s. The land reforms were aimed at distributing the land from the large landowners to the landless and the poor. In 1963, the Kerala government passed the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which placed a limit on the amount of land that a person could hold. In March 1970, Bharati moved the Supreme Court (under Article 32 of the Constitution) to enforce the rights that were guaranteed to him under:

  1. Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion
  2. Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs
  3. Article 14: Right to equality
  4. Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property
  5. Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property

Issues before the SC-

  • Whether the following is constitutionally valid?

24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971– The 24th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, enacted in 1971, was a pivotal legislative response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Golak Nath case (1967). In that case, the Court had ruled that Parliament lacked the authority to amend Fundamental Rights. To counter this, the 24th Amendment explicitly affirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, by modifying Article 368.

25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972– The 25th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, enacted in 1971, sought to curtail the fundamental right to property and ensure that laws made to implement certain Directive Principles, specifically those in Article 39(b) and (c), could not be challenged for violating rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 31.

  • The extent of the amending powers of the Parliament.
  • Can the Parliament amend the Constitution to an extend that it can take away the Fundamental Rights of the citizens?

The verdict-

This landmark case was heard by a 13-judge bench of the SC, the largest ever in Indian Constitutional history. In a slight 7:6 majority, it was held that while the Parliament has the power to alter any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This limitation on the amending power of the Parliament was done in order to safeguard the core principles enshrined in the Constitution. 

While deciding the validity of the 24th Amendment, the Supreme Court upheld the amendment and acknowledged the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights. However, it contended that the amendment should not infringe on the basic structure. Moreover, the Supreme Court examined the validity of the 25th Amendment and upheld the amendment’s provisions concerning the determination of compensation and the protection of laws under Article 31C. However, it struck down the portion of Article 31C that excluded judicial review, affirming that judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure. Even though the petitioner partially lost the case, the judgement delivered by the 13-judge bench proved to be the saviour of the Indian democracy. 

The minority was of the opinion that the Parliament should not be vested with such wide amending powers as it can be “detrimental to Indian constitutional governance” and the sanctity of the Constitution would be lost.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE

Through this judgement, the Court exhibited “extreme creativeness” and came up with the most innovative doctrine in Indian constitutional history. This doctrine of basic structure halted the “ever-extending arm” of the legislature, thereby safeguarding the core principles of the constitution. With the intention to preserve the original ideals of the Constitution, the Supreme Court pronounced that the Parliament “could not distort, disfigure and mutilate” the basic features of the Constitution which are sacrosanct to the ideals of the Indian society. The idea of the doctrine is that the Constitution should not be amended to such an extent that foundational principles and uniqueness of it is lost. 

The basic structure is a permanent bulwark against tyranny and dictatorship. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud referred to the doctrine as the “North Star” which provides direction to the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution. 

JUDGEMENTS THAT SHAPED THE DOCTRINE

  1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

The Allahabad High Court had invalidated the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on the grounds of corruption and malpractices. To counter this, the government passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, which barred judicial review of elections involving the Prime Minister, President, and Speaker, effectively shielding Indira Gandhi’s election from judicial scrutiny.

However, the Supreme Court held that free and fair elections are a part of the basic structure doctrine, so the amendment was invalid. Moreover, the Court also contended that such an amendment is against democracy and rule of law. 

  1. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

The 42nd Amendment attempted to curtail judicial review and accord primacy to the Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. This gave an unrestricted power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court held that the supremacy of the Constitution is the most fundamental aspect of the basic structure doctrine. A harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is essential and any amendment distorting the balance is invalid. 

  1. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)

In this case, the Supreme Court examined the validity of Section 31A, Section 31B and unamended Section 31C. The court held that while the Kesavananda Bharati judgement cannot have a retrospective effect, the further amendments done to the 9th schedule would be subjected to judicial scrutiny if they violated the basic structure. This decision limited the blanket immunity previously afforded to laws in the Ninth Schedule, ensuring that they do not contravene fundamental constitutional principles. 

  1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

The dismissal of state governments and imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 were challenged as being arbitrary and politically motivated. The Supreme Court held that the secular and federal features are part of the basic structure doctrine and as a result the state governments cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by the Parliament. 

  1. National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) case (2015)

The 99th Amendment sought to replace the collegium system of judicial appointments with the NJAC, giving the executive a significant role in the process. This amendment raised serious questions about the independence of judiciary and separation of power. 

The Supreme Court held that independence of judiciary and separation of power are integral parts of the basic structure doctrine and any amendment that alters these principles is ultra vires to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. 

CRITICISMS 

While the doctrine has been instrumental in preserving the spirit of the Constitution, it has been criticised for not having any roots in the Constitution. Critics argue that the principle of sovereignty of people is the basic fundamental principle of a democratic country, therefore the power of the judiciary to over-turn the laws enacted by the Parliament, is against the spirit of the Constitution. Moreover, the lack of a clear definition and an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure raises questions about the credibility of the judicial decisions. Critics describe the doctrine as a judicial over-reach and against the principles of separation of power. 

CONCLUSION 

The Kesavananda Bharati case marks a landmark in Indian constitutional law, establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine, which provides for the fact that though Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot change its basic structure.  This judgment has been described as a watershed in Indian constitutional history, for it has confirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary to protect its basic structure. By outlining the inviolable aspects of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has protected democratic values, so that any amendment would strengthen rather than weaken the very foundational ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. This legacy remains to this day and influences constitutional interpretation and legislative actions, thereby strengthening and upholding the resilience and integrity of India’s democratic framework.

Scroll to Top