Basic Structure Doctrine
Doctrine of the Basic Structure:
- The origins of the ‘Basic Structure’ ideology may be traced back to a post-independence struggle between Fundamental Rights (FR) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) over the question of enacting land reforms.
- The following four incidents are crucial to comprehending the origins of the notion of “basic structure”: Minerva mills, Shankari Prasad (1951), Golak Nath (1967), Keshavananda Bharati (1973), and Shankari Prasad (1951) (1980)
The case of Shankari Prasad:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the legislature’s ability to modify the constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
- It based its decision on the premise that the term “law” used in Article 13 exclusively refers to ordinary laws, not constitutional amendment activities.
The case of Golaknath:
- The Supreme Court overturned its decision.
- Fundamental Rights are granted a transcendental and unchangeable position, and the Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights, according to the ruling.
- According to it, the constitutional amendment act is likewise a legislation under Art 13 of the Constitution.
- In response to this decision, Parliament passed the 24th Amendment Act, which contained a provision in Art 368 declaring that Parliament has the power to revoke any of the fundamental rights.
- The case of Keshavananda Bharati
- The Supreme Court overturned its decision in the Golaknath case.
- It maintained the 24th Amendment Act’s legality and stated that parliament had the authority to repeal or limit any of the FRs. However, such revisions should not affect the constitution’s “fundamental framework.”
Case of Minerva Mills:
- In response to the foregoing case, Parliament enacted the 42nd Amendment Act, which proclaimed under Article 368 that Parliament’s constituent power is unrestricted and banned courts from challenging such revisions.
- The Supreme Court said that Parliament cannot take away the constitution’s ‘judicial review’ power since it is part of the ‘fundamental structure of the concept.’
Components of the Basic Structure:
- Constitutional rule of law
- Indian polity’s sovereignty, liberty, and republican nature.
- Review by a judge o Achieving a harmonious and balanced relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles.
- Separation of powers is a term that refers to the separation of powers between two
- Characteristics of the federal government
- A parliamentary system is in place.
- The principle of equality.
- The nation’s unity and integrity.
- Elections that are free and fair. o The Supreme Court’s powers under Articles 32, 136, 142, and 147
- Articles 226 and 227 provide the HC power.
- Parliament has little power to modify the constitution. o State of welfare. o An individual’s freedom and dignity.
- The Basic Structure notion has been stressed in several Supreme Court decisions, including Indira Nehru Gandhi, Minerva Mills, Waman Rao, and I.R.Coelho.
The primary objections of the basic structure theory:
- The theory, it is commonly argued, has no validity in the Constitution’s wording. There is no textual support for the doctrine. There is no provision stating that this Constitution has a basic structure that is beyond the amending power’s jurisdiction.
- Its critics further think that the doctrine empowers the court to impose its philosophy on a democratically elected government.
- Because there is no clear definition of what comprises basic structure, the doctrine is confusing.
- The doctrine has recently been used in situations that have been viewed as examples of judicial overreach. The Supreme Court used this theory to find the NJAC bill null and void.
- Arguments in Support of the Basic Structure
- Article 13 (2) ensures that citizens’ fundamental rights are safeguarded. Parliament and state legislatures are expressly forbidden from enacting legislation that restricts or restricts citizens’ fundamental rights.
- The constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court is the constitution’s guarantee and protector.
- Without this notion, an authoritative government may have diluted the constitution’s requirements.
