The concept of the basic structure of the Constitution emerged through judicial interpretation and landmark decisions by the Supreme Court of India. It represents a fundamental principle that certain core features and principles of the Constitution are beyond the amending power of the Parliament. The evolution of the basic structure doctrine can be traced through key judicial decisions:
- Early Years:
- In the initial years after the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, there was a belief that the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368 was plenary, meaning it could amend any part of the Constitution. This perspective was evident in early decisions such as Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), where the courts held that the power to amend the Constitution was unrestricted.
- Golaknath Case (1967):
- The case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) was a turning point. In this case, the Supreme Court, for the first time, held that Parliament’s amending power did not extend to altering or amending fundamental rights. The court asserted that certain provisions of the Constitution were unamendable.
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):
- The most significant development in the evolution of the basic structure doctrine occurred in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). In this landmark decision, a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in a 7-6 majority verdict, held that while Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it did not have the power to destroy or abrogate its basic structure.
- Basic Structure Doctrine Defined:
- The basic structure doctrine, as laid down in Kesavananda Bharati, implied that there are certain essential features or basic elements of the Constitution that form its core and identity. These are immutable and cannot be altered through the amendment process. The court did not explicitly define the elements of the basic structure but identified some principles, including federalism, secularism, democracy, and the separation of powers.
- Doctrine’s Scope:
- The Kesavananda Bharati case did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure. Instead, it left the scope of the doctrine open-ended, allowing it to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
- Indira Gandhi Case (1975):
- The basic structure doctrine faced a significant test during the period of the Emergency (1975-1977). In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the court, even under pressure, reiterated the basic structure doctrine and held that the amending power did not extend to altering or amending the basic structure.
- Later Cases:
- Subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court, such as Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981), and more, continued to uphold the basic structure doctrine. The court has applied the doctrine in various cases to strike down amendments that were deemed to violate the core principles of the Constitution.
- Evolution through Interpretation:
- The basic structure doctrine has evolved through the interpretative process, with the judiciary playing a crucial role in defining and safeguarding the essential features of the Constitution. The doctrine acts as a check on the amending power of the Parliament, ensuring that it does not undermine the foundational principles of the Constitution.
The basic structure doctrine has become an integral part of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, serving as a safeguard against arbitrary changes to the Constitution and reinforcing the principles that form the bedrock of the nation’s governance.
