Introduction
Our Constitution is written and controlled Constitution. It can only be amended to the extent of and in accordance with the provisions contained therein, the provision being Article 368 of the Constitution. Some of the provisions of the Constitution of India form its Basic Structure and are not amendable by Parliament even by exercise of its Constituent power under Article 368 of Indian Constitution.
Below we will discuss Doctrine of Basic Structure Theory and Landmarks Judgments on it.
What is Basic Structure Doctrine?
In our Indian Constitution there is no such mentioning of Basic Structure Doctrine. The concept of doctrine of basic structure evolved over years through leading cases in our Country. The idea is to protect the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and protect the rights of the citizens of the country. The main highlight of the Doctrine is that no one is above the Constitution, including the Parliament and Judiciary. This underscores the supremacy of the constitution.
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1965 Justice Hidyatullah gave descendant judgment and mentioned in his judgment that though Parliament can Amend the constitution under Article 368 but no one even the Judiciary is not superior than law.
Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951
It was a very first case that challenged 1st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951. Parliament Inserted Article 31A and 31B through 1st Amendment and inserted 9th Schedule in Article 31B which raised doubts that is a proper violation of Part III of Indian Constitution.
Supreme Court held that the word ‘Law’ in Article 13(3) does not include Constitutional Amendment and refers to law made in exercise of ordinary legislative power not the amendments made in the constitution. Therefore, Supreme Court upheld the validity of 1st Constitutional Amendment and held that it does not violate Fundamental Rights.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
It was a very first case where basic structure word referred by Justice Mudhokar and Justice Hidyatullah in their judgments. In this case 17th Constitutional Amendment Act was challenged raising issues that whether the parliament can amend any part of the constitution under Article 368 of Constitution ?
The judgment came in 3:2 and Supreme court held that Article 368 of Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to amend any article of the Constitution. Moreover, the word ‘LAW’ in Article 13(3) does not apply to constitutional amendments.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967
The Golaknath Case was heard by 11 judge Constitutional bench and arguments was raised by Advocate Nani Palkiwala regarding the violation of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 14 and Constitutional validity of 17th Amendment and Article 31(B).
Supreme Court held No Constitutional amendment can curtail or limit Fundamental Right. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that any amendment curtaining Fundamental Right would be void, but still the Punjab Security and Land Tenure Act and 17th Amendment Constitutional Amendment Act will be valid.
Kesavnanda Bharti Vs. State of Kerala
Kesavnanda Bharti was the chief of Ednur Mutt located in Kasaragod, Kerala. Issues were raised when the Kerala government passed their Land Reforms Amendment Act,1969 according to which Kerala government can acquire some of the land that belonged to Mutt. In March 1970, Bharti moved to Supreme Court to enforce the rights guaranteed to her under Article 25,26,14,19(1)(f) and Article 31 of Indian Constitution.
Judgment was delivered by a Majority of 7:6 wherein the majority held that any provision of the Indian Constitution can be Amended by the Parliament to fulfill its socio-economic obligation that were guaranteed to the citizens as given in the Preamble, provided that such amendment cannot change the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.
Basic structure may be said to consist of the following features:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Republican and Democratic Form of Government
- Secular Character of the Constitution
- Separation of Powers between The Legislature, The Executive, Judiciary.
- Federal Character of the Constitution
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, the issues before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was the constitutional validity of section 5(b), 21, 25 and 27 R/W 2nd Schedule of Nationalization Act,1974. Moreover, the constitutional validity of 368(4) and 368(5) of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act,1976. Furthermore, the primacy of the DPSP over the Fundamental Rights.
The judgment was pronounced by a 5 Judge Bench with the majority of 4:1 and held that the Parliament has the power to Amend the Constitution but should be within its basic framework. Moreover, they stated that the unlimited power to amend the constitution would alienate democracy. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India struck down the clause (5) and (4) of 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act because it hampers basic structure of the Constitution and restricts the Court’s power of Judicial review.
