Basic Structure Doctrine

Evolution of basic structure doctrine

• Shankari Prasad case, 1951: The validity of the 1st amendment was challenged as it violated fundamental rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could modify or take away any Fundamental right using a constitutional amendment.

• Golaknath case, 1963: The Supreme Court declared that Fundamental rights are sacrosanct and the Parliament cannot modify them or abrogate them.

• Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973: The Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment Act, declaring the Parliament has the powers to alter the Fundamental rights but not the ‘basic structure’.

• Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973: The Supreme Court declared the Supremacy of the Constitution and Separation of power as part of the basic structure.

• Indira Nehru Gandhi case, 1975: Rule of law and Free & fair election became part of the basic structure.

• Minerva Mills case, 1980: The court stressed the limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution. Also declared Judicial review and harmony between fundamental rights and DPSP as a basic feature.

• Bhim Singhji case, 1981: The welfare state became part of the basic structure.

• Kumar Padma Prasad case, 1992: Independence of the judiciary was recognized as a basic feature.

• S. R. Bommai case, 1994: The Court declared federalism and Secularism to be part of basic structure doctrine.

• M. Nagaraj case, 2006: The principle of equality was recognized as a basic feature of the Indian constitution.

• I.R. Coelho case, 2007: The essence underlying fundamental rights became part of the basic structure.

Significance of basic structure doctrine

• Preservation of constitutional values: The basic structure doctrine ensures that the cardinal values of the constitution like secularism, rule of law, federalism etc. are protected.

• Example: In the Indira Nehru Gandhi case, the court emphasized on rule of law as a basic feature of the constitution.

• Prevent misuse of power: The provision enables the judiciary to strike a balance on the amending powers of the Parliament, thus preventing misuse.

• Example: In the Minerva Mills case, the apex court stressed the limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution.

• Makes judicial review more solid: The use of Article 13 and Article 32 becomes more fruitful when the judiciary strikes down provisions that violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Example: Judiciary using the judicial review mechanism to strike down the NJAC act which violated the independence of the judiciary.

• Primacy to rights of individuals: Protection of the fundamental rights enhances the quality of rights available to individuals and protects them against arbitrary state action.

• Example: In the Namit Sharma case, the Supreme Court gave out a verdict that protecting the freedom and dignity of an individual is part of the basic structure.

• Flexibility: The flexible nature of interpretation ensures that the judgements are more aligned with the social conditions prevalent during the time.

• Example: The flexible interpretation of Article 21 enabled the court to include provisions like privacy, livelihood, shelter etc. as part of fundamental rights.

Concerns regarding basic structure doctrine

• Vagueness of the provision: The doctrine is not well defined and this brings more subjectivity and creates a lack of clarity regarding the judgements.

• Example: The Coelho case gives out a call by the judiciary that the essence underlying fundamental rights is part of the basic structure, but this itself is very vague and subjective.

• Judicial overreach: The power to have a subjective analysis means verdicts solely depend on the interpretation of the judge and this increases the scope for misuse.

• Example: The Supreme Court verdict to strike down NJAC has been regarded as an example of judicial overreach under the cover of basic structure.

• Absence in the original constitution: There are many who criticize the provision on the ground that the basic structure document was not in the minds of the constitution makers and hence is against the essence of the constitution,

• Freezing power upon legislature: The judiciary exercising more powers could have a chilling effect on the legislature which affects lawmaking and leads to policy paralysis.

• Lack of accountability for the judiciary: The judiciary is not held responsible by the public for their verdict, while legislatures are. Governments implementing unpopular judicial verdicts may hamper political stability.

• Example: Kerala government trying to implement the Supreme Court verdict on Sabarimala resulted in a chaotic situation in the state.

Thus, basic structure provision has ensured that the core values of the constitution and the rights of the individual do not go subservient to the powers of the state. However, the judiciary must restrain itself from using this power to ensure that it does not have a chilling effect on the legislature and does not result in judicial overreach.