Discuss the evolution of the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' through the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court. Explain its significance in limiting Parliament's amending power and in maintaining a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitu…

Question

Discuss the evolution of the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' through the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court. Explain its significance in limiting Parliament's amending power and in maintaining a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.

Eduteria · Accepted Answer

STEP-I : Introduction The Indian Constitution is a living and dynamic document; while Parliament has been granted the power to amend it under Article 368 to maintain this dynamism, the judiciary defines the limits of this power through the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine.’ This doctrine is a ‘constitutional innovation’ evolved through judicial interpretation, allowing Parliament to amend the Constitution without compromising its core spirit. It serves as a balancing point between ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ and ‘constitutional supremacy,’ safeguarding the soul of democracy against authoritarianism. STEP-II : The gradual evolution of the basic structure doctrine through landmark judgments. The backdrop to the emergence of the 'Basic Structure' doctrine lies in the conceptual conflict between Article 13 and Article 368. The dispute centered on whether a 'constitutional amendment' enacted under Article 368 falls within the ambit of the term 'law' as defined in Article 13(2). If it does, Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights; if it does not, Parliament can alter the entire Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This legal tug-of-war gave birth to this historic doctrine, which can be traced through the following cases— Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. According to the Court, the term 'law' used in Article 13 refers only to 'ordinary laws' and not to 'constitutional amendment laws'. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): A five-judge bench of the Court reiterated the ruling from the Shankari Prasad case, affirming that Parliament could alter any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Although the majority decision favored Parliament, Justice J.R. Mudholkar, in his dissenting opinion, hinted for the first time at the existence of certain "basic features" of the Constitution that could not be altered. This idea later laid the foundation for the 'Basic Structure' doctrine. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): A Punjab government land security law that affected the right to property was challenged. Given the gravity of the matter, a large bench comprising 11 judges was constituted. By a 6:5 majority, the Court overruled its two previous judgments (Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh). Chief Justice K. Subba Rao held that: Fundamental rights are 'transcendental and inalienable' to human existence. Article 368 merely prescribes the 'procedure' for amendment; it does not confer upon Parliament the 'sovereign power' to amend. A constitutional amendment also constitutes 'law' under Article 13; therefore, Parliament cannot enact any amendment that violates fundamental rights. This decision completely tied the hands of Parliament, creating a major obstacle for the government in implementing socio-economic reforms. Subsequently, to nullify the impact of the Golaknath case and re-establish its supremacy, the Indira Gandhi government amended Articles 13 and 368 through the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendment Acts (1971), thereby granting Parliament unlimited amending power. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Kerala government had acquired land belonging to Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt. In this case, the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments was challenged. A 13-judge bench the largest in the history of the Indian judiciary was constituted to hear the matter and listened to arguments over a period of 68 days. The Court delivered a historic verdict (by a 7:6 majority), which is as follows— The Court held that the power vested in Parliament under Article 368 is one of 'amendment,' not 'destruction.' Parliament cannot alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The Court declared the part of the 25th Amendment that restricted 'judicial review' to be unconstitutional, stating that judicial review itself is a part of the basic structure. The Court upheld the validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment and overruled the judgment in the Golaknath case. It held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights; however, the Court imposed a logical and historical limitation on this power of Parliament. Subsequently, the Supreme Court further clarified and strengthened this doctrine through various cases (such as the Raj Narain case of 1975, the Minerva Mills case of 1980, and the I.R. Coelho case of 2007). At the same time, the Supreme Court did not provide a definitive list of the 'basic structure,' stating instead that its elements would continue to be defined based on the passage of time and the facts of specific cases. To date, the following elements have been recognized as part of the 'basic structure' through various judgments: STEP–III : Its significance in limiting Parliament's amending power The 'Basic Structure' doctrine has served as a highly effective 'check and balance' on the absolute and unlimited powers of Parliament within the Indian constitutional framework. Its significance is evident from the following points: Clarifying the distinction between amendment and rewriting: This doctrine clarifies that Article 368 empowers Parliament only to 'amend' that is, to make improvements or partial changes. It does not grant Parliament the sovereign power to 'write a new Constitution' or to 'destroy' the existing one. Check on majoritarianism and party dictatorship: In a parliamentary democracy, a single political party sometimes secures an overwhelming majority. This doctrine ensures that a government holding a temporary majority cannot completely dismantle the nation's enduring democratic fabric (such as secularism, federalism, and the republican character) to suit its own political ideology. A permanent shield for citizens' rights: In the Golaknath case, the judiciary had completely curtailed Parliament's power, which was not practical. The Basic Structure doctrine allowed Parliament to enact amendments for socio-economic reforms in the public interest while simultaneously safeguarding fundamental attributes such as the 'right to life' and the 'right to equality' for citizens in perpetuity. Preserving the philosophy of a written constitution: The very purpose of a written constitution is to limit the powers of governance. If Parliament were to possess unlimited amending power, the rationale behind having a written constitution would be nullified. This doctrine upholds the supremacy of the written constitution. STEP-IV : Balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy India has adopted a remarkable and balanced middle path between the two. India possesses neither 'Parliamentary sovereignty' like the British Parliament nor absolute 'judicial supremacy' like the United States; instead, India has "Constitutional supremacy." The doctrine of basic structure is the primary instrument for maintaining this balance: Respect for Parliamentary Sovereignty: The judiciary fully recognizes Parliament's authority to enact laws and amend the Constitution. Courts do not proactively create laws, nor do they interfere in policy matters unless they are unconstitutional. Parliament is free to implement major changes (such as the introduction of GST or the provision of EWS reservation) in alignment with public aspirations. Protection of the Constitution through Judicial Supremacy: When Parliament oversteps its authority and infringes upon the 'basic structure' of the Constitution (for instance, by establishing the 'National Judicial Appointments Commission' (NJAC) via the 99th Amendment a move that compromised judicial independence), the Court invokes the 'basic structure' doctrine to strike down such an amendment. Separation of Powers: The Constitution defines the respective spheres of operation for the three organs of government (Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary). The basic structure doctrine prevents the Executive from interfering in the functions of the Judiciary (and vice versa), thereby minimizing conflict between the organs and maintaining a balance. This principle does not render Parliament ineffective; rather, it makes it accountable and ensures it operates within proper bounds. It paves the way for "continuity with change," which is essential for the constitution of any progressive nation. In a country like India characterized by vast diversity and a multicultural, multi-religious fabric, where regional and social balances are extremely delicate this principle guarantees that the nation will always be governed in accordance with the rule of law and constitutional principles. STEP-V : Conclusion Thus, it can be concluded that the doctrine of basic structure is an invaluable gift from the Indian judiciary to global constitutional law, having established an ideal balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy that imparts longevity and stability to Indian democracy.

Discuss the evolution of the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' through the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court. Explain its significance in limiting Parliament's amending power and i…

हिंदी माध्यम

प्रश्न

आदर्श उत्तर

English Medium

Question

Model answer