The Constitution of India is celebrated for its balance of rigidity and flexibility. While it empowers Parliament to amend its provisions, it also ensures that the core identity of the Constitution is preserved. This balance is maintained through the Basic Structure Doctrine, a judicial innovation that restricts Parliament’s amending power. The doctrine ensures that certain fundamental principle such as democracy, rule of law and judicial review remain inviolable.
Early Years: No Limit on Amending Power
In the initial years after independence, the Supreme Court adopted a liberal view of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Court held that constitutional amendments under Article 368 could not be challenged under fundamental rights. Parliament’s power to amend was deemed plenary.
-
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad, observing that the framers intended Parliament to have wide amending powers, including over fundamental rights.
This approach meant that fundamental rights were not immune from amendment, giving Parliament supremacy in constitutional changes.
The Turning Point: Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
The Supreme Court, by a narrow majority, held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. It treated Article 368 not as a source of power but merely as a procedure for amendment. Thus, fundamental rights were placed beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power.
This decision created friction between the legislature and judiciary, as it restricted Parliament’s ability to implement socio-economic reforms, especially land redistribution and property-related legislation.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Birth of the Doctrine
The most significant turning point came in the Kesavananda Bharati case, where a 13-judge bench (the largest ever in Indian judicial history) examined the scope of Article 368.
-
The Court, by a 7:6 majority, held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is wide but not unlimited.
-
It can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
-
However, it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
Though the Court did not provide an exhaustive list, it identified key elements forming the basic structure, including:
-
Supremacy of the Constitution
-
Republican and democratic form of government
-
Secular character of the Constitution
-
Separation of powers
-
Federalism
-
Judicial review
This doctrine has since become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.
Strengthening the Doctrine: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
In this case, the Supreme Court applied the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to place the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial scrutiny. The Court held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure, and therefore cannot be undermined.
The Emergency Era and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
During the Emergency (1975-77), Parliament passed the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, attempting to give unlimited amending power to itself and excluding judicial review.
-
In Minerva Mills, the Supreme Court struck down sections of the 42nd Amendment, reiterating that limited amending power itself is part of the basic structure.
-
The Court also emphasized that the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is an essential feature of the Constitution.
Subsequent Developments
-
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and drew a line of demarcation, holding that all amendments made before Kesavananda Bharati were valid, while those after would be subject to the doctrine.
-
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Applied the doctrine to uphold federalism and secularism as part of the basic structure, limiting misuse of President’s Rule.
-
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): Expanded the doctrine, holding that even laws placed under the Ninth Schedule (meant to shield them from judicial review) are subject to basic structure scrutiny.
Significance of the Doctrine
The Basic Structure Doctrine is significant because:
-
Preserves Constitutional Identity: Prevents Parliament from rewriting the Constitution’s core principles.
-
Checks Parliamentary Supremacy: Ensures balance of power between legislature and judiciary.
-
Protects Democracy and Rule of Law: Guarantees that essential features like free elections, secularism, and judicial independence remain intact.
-
Judicial Innovation: Showcases the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.
Criticism of the Doctrine
-
Judicial Overreach: Critics argue the doctrine gives unelected judges excessive power to veto parliamentary decisions.
-
Uncertainty: The doctrine does not define a fixed list of “basic features,” leaving it open to judicial interpretation.
-
Democratic Deficit: Some scholars argue it undermines the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives.
Conclusion
The evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine reflects India’s constitutional journey towards maintaining a delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy. From Shankari Prasad to I.R. Coelho, the doctrine has safeguarded democracy, federalism, secularism, and judicial independence from being eroded by transient political majorities.
Far from being a limitation, the doctrine has emerged as a protector of constitutional continuity and stability. It ensures that while the Constitution can evolve with changing times, its core values remain timeless and inviolable.