Author: Vidhi Pravinbhai Pandya, Anand Law College, Anand
To the Point
The Basic Structure Doctrine stands as one of the most significant judicial innovations in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Developed to preserve the foundational principles of the Constitution, this doctrine acts as a limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. In recent years, however, an era of strong parliamentary dominance—characterised by sweeping constitutional amendments and legislative assertiveness—has reignited debates surrounding the relevance, scope, and legitimacy of the Basic Structure Doctrine. This article examines whether the doctrine continues to function as a constitutional safeguard or whether it faces erosion in the face of parliamentary supremacy. By analysing landmark judgments and contemporary constitutional developments, the article seeks to evaluate the doctrine’s resilience in modern Indian democracy.
Abstract
The Indian Constitution grants Parliament wide-ranging powers to amend constitutional provisions. However, the Supreme Court, through judicial interpretation, has imposed substantive limitations on this power by evolving the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine ensures that certain core features of the Constitution—such as democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review—remain inviolable. In an age marked by increasing parliamentary dominance and frequent constitutional amendments, the tension between democratic mandate and constitutional supremacy has intensified. This article critically analyses the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine, its judicial application, and its contemporary relevance. It argues that despite criticisms of judicial overreach, the doctrine remains indispensable to preserving constitutional morality and preventing majoritarian excesses.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Basic Structure Doctrine represents a constitutional limitation on Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368 of the Constitution of India. While Parliament possesses plenary authority to amend constitutional provisions, such power is not absolute. The doctrine, developed through judicial interpretation, postulates that amendments destroying or abrogating the “basic structure” of the Constitution are unconstitutional and void ab initio. This principle reflects constitutional supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty, distinguishing Indian constitutionalism from the British model.
Key constitutional concepts such as judicial review, separation of powers, constitutional morality, and limited government are intrinsically linked to the doctrine. The Supreme Court has consistently held that constitutional amendments are subject to substantive scrutiny, ensuring that the core identity of the Constitution is preserved. In an era of parliamentary dominance, the doctrine functions as a counter-majoritarian check, reinforcing the rule of law and preventing the concentration of power.
The Proof
Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution by following a prescribed procedure. Initially, this power was interpreted broadly, allowing Parliament to amend even fundamental rights. However, unchecked amending power posed a threat to constitutional stability and individual liberties. The judiciary intervened to balance democratic will with constitutional integrity.
The Basic Structure Doctrine emerged as a judicial response to the potential misuse of constituent power. It does not restrict Parliament from amending the Constitution but prohibits alterations that damage its foundational framework. Over time, the Supreme Court has identified various elements as part of the basic structure, including the supremacy of the Constitution, secularism, federalism, judicial independence, and free and fair elections.
In the contemporary political landscape, strong parliamentary majorities have enabled the passage of significant constitutional amendments affecting governance, electoral processes, and institutional autonomy. This has intensified concerns regarding majoritarianism and the dilution of constitutional values. Critics argue that judicial enforcement of the Basic Structure Doctrine undermines democratic choice, while supporters contend that democracy itself cannot survive without constitutional restraints.
The doctrine thus operates as a constitutional safety valve, ensuring that democratic governance does not devolve into authoritarianism under the guise of parliamentary supremacy.
Case Laws
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala( 1973)
This corner judgment laid the foundation of the Basic Structure Doctrine. A thirteen- judge bench of the Supreme Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it can not alter its introductory structure. The Court did n’t give an total list of introductory features, allowing the doctrine to evolve with time. This case conformed administrative power with indigenous supremacy and remains the foundation of Indian indigenous law.
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain( 1975)
The Supreme Court applied the Basic Structure Doctrine to abate the 39th indigenous Correction, which sought to count judicial review of the election of the Prime Minister. The Court held that free and fair choices and judicial review are part of the introductory structure. This judgment demonstrated the doctrine’s part in bridling political abuse of indigenous emendations.
3. Minerva manufactories Ltd. v. Union of India( 1980)
In this case, the Court struck down clauses of the 42nd indigenous Correction that sought to give unlimited amending power to Parliament. The Court held that limited amending power itself is part of the introductory structure. The judgment corroborated the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and elided administrative dictatorship.
4. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu( 2007)
The Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment are subject to judicial review if they violate abecedarian rights forming part of the introductory structure. This case reaffirmed the doctrine’s continuing applicability and rigidity.
5. Supreme Court lawyers- on- Record Association v. Union of India( 2015)
The Court struck down the 99th indigenous Correction establishing the National Judicial movables Commission( NJAC), holding that judicial independence is part of the introductory structure. This judgment stressed the doctrine’s part in conserving institutional autonomy against legislative encroachment.
Conclusion
The Basic Structure Doctrine remains a vital constitutional safeguard in the age of parliamentary dominance. While Parliament derives legitimacy from democratic elections, its authority is circumscribed by constitutional limitations designed to protect long-term democratic values. The doctrine ensures that transient political majorities cannot dismantle the constitutional framework established by the Constituent Assembly.
Although critics label the doctrine as an example of judicial overreach, it is better understood as an instrument of constitutional guardianship. In a diverse and pluralistic society like India, unchecked parliamentary power poses risks to minority rights, federal balance, and institutional independence. The Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a stabilising force, preserving the Constitution’s identity while allowing necessary evolution.
Ultimately, the doctrine embodies the principle that constitutional democracy is not merely about majority rule but about governance grounded in constitutional morality, rule of law, and justice.
FAQS
1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle that limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by prohibiting changes that damage its core features.
2. Which case introduced the doctrine in India?
The doctrine was established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
3. Is parliamentary sovereignty absolute in India?
No. Unlike the British system, India follows constitutional supremacy, and Parliament’s powers are subject to judicial review.
4. What are some elements of the basic structure?
Key elements include the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, secularism, federalism, and free and fair elections.
5. Why is the doctrine relevant today?
In an era of strong parliamentary dominance, the doctrine prevents majoritarian abuse and preserves constitutional balance and democratic values.
