Author: Yamini Goel
University: Amity University, Noida
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/yamini-goel-34509b415
To the Point
The Constitution of India, which became operational in 1950, was framed to meet the aspirations and challenges of a newly independent nation. At the same time, the framers recognised that no constitution could remain completely static in a rapidly changing society. Evolving social conditions, emerging rights, and new governance requirements may necessitate constitutional modifications. Exercising its amending power, Parliament has introduced several significant changes over the years, including provisions relating to affirmative action for scheduled tribes and scheduledcastes and the incorporation of Article 21A, which guarantees the Right to Education. The origins of the Basic Structure Doctrine lie in the constitutional tension between Articles 13 and 368. Article 13 invalidates laws that infringe Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 368 grants Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution. This raised a crucial constitutional question: whether Parliament’s power to amend was unrestricted or whether certain essential constitutional principles lay beyond its reach. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in KesavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where it propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment introduced and clarified several constitutional concepts that continue to shape Indian constitutional discourse. One such concept is constitutional supremacy, which signifies that the Constitution occupies the highest position within the legal framework of the country. Another is judicial review, referring to the authority of constitutional courts to examine the validity of legislative and executive actions in light of constitutional requirements. The expression constituent power denotes Parliament’s competence under Article 368 to amend constitutional provisions. The decision further established the Basic Structure Doctrine, according to which Parliament cannot exercise its amending power in a manner that destroys the Constitution’s essential character. Features such as the rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, democracy, and the protection of Fundamental Rights have been recognised through judicial decisions as integral components of the Constitution’s basic structure. These principles ensure that democratic governance operates within constitutional boundaries designed to safeguard foundational values.
The Proof
The development of the Basic Structure Doctrine reflects the constitutional objective of preventing the concentration of unchecked authority within any organ of the State. In its earlier decisions, such as Shankari Prasad, the Supreme Court adopted an expansive interpretation of Parliament’s amending power. However, repeated constitutional amendments affecting Fundamental Rights prompted renewed judicial scrutiny regarding the permissible scope of this authority. Through a series of landmark rulings, including Golaknath, Kesavananda Bharati, Indira Nehru Gandhi, and Minerva Mills, the Supreme Courtgradually evolved the principle that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, though extensive, is not absolute. The Court ultimately concluded that certain constitutional ideals—such as democracy, the rule of law, judicial review, and the protection of individual freedoms—form part of the Constitution’s core identity and therefore cannot be abrogated through constitutional amendment. This line of judicial reasoning underscores that constitutional evolution must take place without compromising the foundational principles that sustain the constitutional order.
Abstract
The ruling in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) occupies a pivotal position in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. By formulating the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the amending power conferred upon Parliament under Article 368 is subject to inherent constitutional limitations. While acknowledging the importance of constitutional adaptability, the Court affirmed that the Constitution’s essential features must remain protected from alteration or destruction. This article explores the historical context of the case, examines the Court’s reasoning, and assesses the enduring relevance of the doctrine in preserving constitutional supremacy, democratic values, judicial review, and the rule of law within India’s constitutional framework.
Landmark Cases and Constitutional Amendments
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951
The First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, was introduced primarily to facilitate land reform measures undertaken by the government after independence. The Amendment inserted Articles 31A and 31B, along with the Ninth Schedule, into the Constitution. Article 31A protected laws relating to the acquisition of estates and agrarian reforms from being challenged on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights. Article 31B, read with the Ninth Schedule, granted immunity to specified laws from judicial review, even if they were inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. Additionally, the Amendment modified Article 19 by expanding the scope of reasonable restrictions and inserted provisions under Article 19(6) enabling the State to carry on any trade, business, industry, or service to the exclusion of private citizens.
Implications
The First Constitutional Amendment marked the beginning of the constitutional debate concerning the relationship between Parliament’s amending power and Fundamental Rights. While the Amendment sought to advance socio-economic reforms, particularly land redistribution, it also raised concerns regarding the extent to which Fundamental Rights could be curtailed through constitutional amendments. This tension between the need for social transformation and the preservation of constitutional liberties eventually became central to the development of India’s constitutional jurisprudence.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
The constitutional validity of the First Constitutional Amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951). The petitioners argued that the Amendment violated Fundamental Rights and was therefore void under Article 13 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Amendment and held that Parliament possessed the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. The Court further clarified that the term “law” under Article 13 referred only to ordinary legislation enacted by Parliament or State Legislatures and did not include constitutional amendments. Consequently, constitutional amendments were held to be outside the scope of Article 13, thereby allowing Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964
The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, was enacted primarily to strengthen agrarian reform measures undertaken by various States. The Amendment expanded the scope of Article 31A by broadening the definition of the term “estate” and inserted several additional land reform legislations into the Ninth Schedule. As a result, these laws received protection under Article 31B and could not be challenged on the ground that they violated Fundamental Rights. The Amendment reflected the continuing tension between the State’s objective of implementing socio-economic reforms and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
The constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965). The principal issue before the Court was whether Parliament possessed the authority to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and whether such amendments fell within the ambit of Article 13.
By a majority of 3:2, the five-judge Bench upheld the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment and reaffirmed the position adopted in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India. Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar, delivering the majority opinion, held that constitutional amendments enacted under Article 368 were distinct from ordinary laws contemplated under Article 13. Consequently, Parliament retained the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
However, the dissenting opinions of Justices M. Hidayatullah and J. R. Mudholkar later assumed considerable significance in the development of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, as the concerns raised by them resurfaced in subsequent cases.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
The Bench consisted of 11 judges. The Supreme Court held that Article 13 applies to constitutional amendments and that such amendments are subject to judicial review. The Court overruled the decisions in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), holding that Parliament does not possess the power to amend Fundamental Rights under the Constitution.
The decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab significantly restricted Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. In response to this judgment, Parliament enacted the Twenty-Fourth Constitutional Amendment to restore its amending authority.
The Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971
The Twenty-Fourth Constitutional Amendment introduced important changes to Articles 13 and 368 of the Constitution. Article 13(4) clarified that constitutional amendments made under Article 368 would not fall within the scope of Article 13. The Amendment reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, by following the procedure prescribed under Article 368.
Several other constitutional amendments, including the Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, and Twenty-Ninth Amendments, were also enacted during this period.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
In this landmark case, the constitutional validity of the Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, and Twenty-Ninth Amendments was challenged. The case was heard by a Bench of 13 judges, the largest Bench in the history of the Supreme Court of India. The Court upheld the validity of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and held that Parliament possesses the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, the Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that although Parliament’s amending power is extensive, it is not unlimited. Parliament cannot alter or destroy the essential features that form the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court did not provide an exhaustive list of these features, leaving it to future judicial interpretation to identify them in light of the constitutional scheme and the intentions underlying the Constitution.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
On 12 June 1975, the Allahabad High Court set aside the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on the ground of electoral malpractices and disqualified her from holding elected office for six years. She challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. During this period, the National Emergency was proclaimed, and Parliament enacted the Constitution (Thirty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1975. Through this Amendment, Article 329A was inserted into the Constitution, placing disputes relating to the election of the Prime Minister, President, Vice-President, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scope of judicial review.
The constitutional validity of Article 329A was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975). The Courtstruck down Clause (4) of Article 329A, holding that free and fair elections, democracy, and judicial review form part of the basic structure of the Constitution andtherefore cannot be abrogated through constitutional amendments. Later, the Janata Government, led by Prime Minister Morarji Desai, repealed Article 329A through the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976
The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, is often referred to as the “Mini Constitution” because of the extensive changes it introduced. It amended Articles 31C and 368 of the Constitution. Through the amendment to Article 31C, laws enacted to give effect to any Directive Principle of State Policy under Part IV were granted protection from being challenged on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19. Clauses (4) and (5) were inserted into Article 368, providing that constitutional amendments could not be questioned in any court and that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The constitutional validity of these provisions was challenged in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980). The Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 and the extended scope of Article 31C, holding that they violated the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court reaffirmed that judicial review and the limited amending power of Parliament form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It further emphasised that there must be harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights under Part III and the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV.
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
In Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court clarified the prospective application of the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court held that constitutional amendments placing laws in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, would remain valid. However, amendments made after that date would be open to challenge if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala occupies a central place in India’s constitutional history because it clarified that Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution is extensive but not unlimited. By formulating the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that the Constitution could adapt to changing circumstances without losing the principles that define its identity. The doctrine has continued to function as an important constitutional check against amendments that threaten the core values underlying the constitutional framework. Concepts such as democracy, federalism, judicial independence, constitutional supremacy, and judicial review remain protected because of this judicial innovation. The lasting significance of the judgment lies in its ability to reconcile constitutional continuity with constitutional change, thereby preserving the vision of governance embodied in the Constitution.
FAQs
1. What does the Basic Structure Doctrine mean?
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a principle evolved by the Supreme Court which provides that Parliament, while exercising its amending power under Article 368, cannot alter or destroy the essential features that give the Constitution its fundamental character.
2. Which constitutional amendments came under challenge in the Kesavananda Bharati case?
The case involved challenges to the constitutional validity of the Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, and Twenty-Ninth Amendment Acts enacted by Parliament.
3. Why does the Kesavananda Bharati judgment continue to be significant?
The ruling remains relevant because it prevents the misuse of the amending power by ensuring that indispensable constitutional values, including democracy, the rule of law, and judicial review, are not undermined through constitutional amendments.
4. Is the Basic Structure Doctrine expressly mentioned in the Constitution of India?
No. The doctrine does not appear in the constitutional text. It emerged through judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court in its effort to determine the limits of Parliament’s amending power.
