The doctrine of basic structure means that Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot destroy its essential features. It protects the spirit of the Constitution against majoritarian impulses in India, where a temporary parliamentary majority may try to weaken constitutional morality, fundamental rights, federalism or judicial independence. Therefore, the role of the judiciary has been crucial in evolving this doctrine and preserving constitutional supremacy.
The basic structure doctrine evolved gradually through important Supreme Court judgments.
Evolution of the Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution:
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951: The Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights through Article 368.
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1965: The Court again upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. However, Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar raised concerns about unlimited amending power.
- I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967: The Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. This judgment tried to protect citizens’ liberties from legislative overreach.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973: A 13-judge bench delivered the landmark judgment. By a 7:6 majority, the Court held that Parliament has wide amending power, but it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The official Kesavananda Bharati judgment archive notes that the Court treated Parliament’s amending power as limited and held that the basic structure cannot be altered even through constitutional amendment.
Basic Features Protected by the Judiciary
The Court did not give one fixed list of basic features. However, through later cases, it recognised several core principles:
- Supremacy of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973)
- Rule of law (S.P. Sampath Kumar Case, 1987)
- Judicial review (S.P. Sampath Kumar Case, 1987)
- Independence of judiciary (Kumar Padma Prasad Case, 1992)
- Separation of powers (I.R. Coelho Case, 2007 – popularly known as IX Schedule Case)
- Federalism (S.R. Bommai Case, 1994)
- Secularism (S.R. Bommai Case, 1994)
- Free and fair elections (Kihoto Hollohon Case, 1993 – Defection Case)
- Democracy (S.R. Bommai Case, 1994)
Judiciary as a Check on Majoritarian Impulses
The judiciary used the doctrine to prevent misuse of parliamentary majority.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975: The Court protected free and fair elections as part of democracy.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980: It held that limited amending power and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are part of the basic structure.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994: The Court strengthened federalism and secularism while checking misuse of Article 356.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007: It held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be reviewed if they damage basic structure.
- NJAC Case, 2015: The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act, holding that judicial independence is part of the basic structure.
- Electoral Bonds Case, 2024: The Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme, strengthening transparency, voter’s right to information and free and fair elections.
Critical View
However, critics argue that the doctrine is judge-made and not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. They also say it gives wide discretion to the judiciary. Yet, in a diverse democracy, it acts as a constitutional safety valve against authoritarianism and majoritarianism.
Conclusion
Thus, the doctrine of basic structure is one of the greatest contributions of the Indian judiciary. It safeguards the spirit of the Constitution by ensuring that Parliament’s amending power remains limited, responsible and constitutional. The judiciary has used this doctrine to protect democracy, federalism, secularism, rights and judicial review. Therefore, it remains essential for preserving India’s constitutional democracy against majoritarian impulses.
