I.
The Basic Structure of the Constitution of India (8 Marks)
The doctrine of basic structure occupies a cardinal place in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It
is a judicially evolved concept that acts as a constitutional sentinel, preventing the destruction of
the Constitution’s core identity under the guise of amendment.
The framers of the Indian Constitution envisaged a dynamic yet stable legal order. Article 368
confers upon Parliament the power to amend the Constitution; however, this amending power is
not unbounded or absolute. The doctrine of basic structure, first enunciated in Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala, circumscribes the amending power by holding that Parliament cannot
abrogate or destroy the essential features of the Constitution.
The expression "basic structure" is not mentioned in the constitutional text, nor is it defined
exhaustively in any judgment. This is by design. The basic structure is a judicially constructed
normative threshold, beyond which constitutional amendments lose legitimacy. It is a limitation
implicit in the constitutional fabric, derived from the principles of constitutional supremacy,
limited government, and constitutional morality.
Over the decades, the Court has emphasized several features as forming part of this inviolable
structure, including:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of Law
Separation of powers
Judicial review
Sovereign, democratic, and republican form of government
Secularism and federalism
Unity and integrity of the nation
Free and fair elections
Independence of the judiciary
Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The utility of this doctrine lies in its function as a counter-majoritarian shield—protecting
constitutional ethos from potential parliamentary tyranny. It fosters constitutional continuity
amidst change, ensuring that amendments are reformative but not destructive.
Importantly, the decision to refrain from codifying or rigidly enumerating the components of the
basic structure stems from a jurisprudential prudence. A closed list would risk obsolescence or
rigidity in the face of evolving socio-political exigencies. Hence, the judiciary has adopted an
interpretative elasticity that allows the doctrine to remain responsive to emerging threats to
constitutionalism.
Thus, the basic structure doctrine reflects a profound commitment to the preservation of
constitutional identity, ensuring that the Constitution retains its soul, even as its body adapts
through the passage of time.
II. Justification of the Doctrine through Judicial Decisions (6 Marks)
The basic structure doctrine has been fortified and crystallized through pivotal judicial
pronouncements. Among these, two landmark cases stand out for their jurisprudential richness
and constitutional foresight:
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This case is the fountainhead of the basic structure doctrine. In a deeply divided but momentous
7:6 decision, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament has vast amending powers under
Article 368, it cannot alter the "basic structure or framework" of the Constitution. The majority
emphasized that the Constitution is not a mere legal document but a living instrument,
embodying the will of the people, which cannot be defeated by majoritarian or transient political
expediencies.
Chief Justice Sikri and other majority judges highlighted that certain core values—such as the
supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, democracy, and judicial review—are so
foundational that they must be preserved beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power.
This case thus demarcated a conceptual boundary around constitutional amendments,
converting Article 368 from a plenary power into a limited one, subject to substantive judicial
scrutiny.
2. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
This decision reinforced and elaborated upon the Kesavananda doctrine. The Court struck down
clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, which attempted to
immunize constitutional amendments from judicial review.
The Court categorically held that judicial review is part of the basic structure, and that removing
it would amount to annihilating the Constitution’s checks and balances. It also observed that a
balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is essential to constitutional
harmony, and upsetting this balance through amendments would violate the basic structure.
Justice Chandrachud famously remarked that "limited amending power itself is part of the basic
structure," thereby reinforcing that no authority, not even the constituent power of Parliament, is
above the Constitution.
Why the Doctrine Remains Uncodified
The non-exhaustive nature of the doctrine is deliberate and jurisprudentially significant.
Codifying the basic structure would petrify its contents, rendering it inflexible and prone to
circumvention. By retaining an open-textured approach, the judiciary ensures the doctrine’s
adaptability and sustains its role as a guardian against insidious constitutional erosion. It
thereby allows judicial wisdom to evolve in tandem with societal transformations and
constitutional challenges.
Conclusion
The doctrine of basic structure is not merely a legal tool—it is a constitutional philosophy. It
embodies the spirit of the Constitution and defends its soul from annihilation. Through seminal
judicial pronouncements, the Indian judiciary has entrenched this doctrine as the ultimate
safeguard of constitutionalism. Its strength lies not in exhaustive enumeration but in its dynamic
adaptability, ensuring that the Constitution of India remains a living document, rooted in principle
yet responsive to change.
Let me know if you would like a summary sheet or case-brief format for quick revision.
Tools
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
