Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, while providing a framework for governance, is a dynamic document interpreted and re-interpreted by the judiciary. The ‘basic structure doctrine’, a pivotal principle of constitutional law, posits that while the Constitution can be amended, its fundamental features cannot be altered. This doctrine, famously articulated in the *Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala* (1973) case, is often perceived as a judicial innovation. However, a closer examination reveals that the seeds of this doctrine were inherent in the Constitution itself, with the Supreme Court merely providing an explicit articulation to an implicit understanding of constitutional limits.
The Implicit Presence of Basic Structure Before 1973
Even before *Kesavananda Bharati*, several Supreme Court judgments hinted at the existence of constitutional limitations on the amending power of Parliament. These judgments, though not explicitly using the term ‘basic structure’, demonstrated a reluctance to allow amendments that would fundamentally alter the core principles of the Constitution.
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): This case upheld the validity of the First Amendment, which curtailed fundamental rights. However, the court acknowledged that the amending power was not absolute and was subject to limitations inherent in the Constitution.
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): The court reiterated that while Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, this power was not unlimited. It suggested that amendments should not alter the ‘essential features’ of the Constitution. Justice J.R. Mudholkar, in his concurring opinion, explicitly stated that the Constitution had certain ‘unalterable’ features.
- I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): This landmark case held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights to alter their character. While later overruled by the 24th Amendment, *Golaknath* significantly strengthened the argument for inherent limitations on the amending power. It highlighted the importance of preserving the core values enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
The Explicit Articulation in Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
The *Kesavananda Bharati* case was a direct response to the attempts by the government to curtail judicial review through constitutional amendments. The court, while upholding Parliament’s amending power, introduced the doctrine of basic structure. This doctrine stated that Parliament could amend the Constitution, but not in a manner that would destroy its fundamental features or alter its basic structure.
Key Elements of the Basic Structure
The basic structure encompasses a range of constitutional principles, including:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Democratic and republican form of government
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Separation of powers
- Judicial review
- Principle of free and fair elections
- Rule of law
- Sovereignty of India
Evolution Post-Kesavananda Bharati
Subsequent cases have further refined and expanded the scope of the basic structure doctrine.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and struck down the 39th Amendment, which sought to shield election laws from judicial review.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case broadened the interpretation of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and linked it to the basic structure by emphasizing the importance of human dignity and procedural fairness.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The court held that secularism was a basic feature of the Constitution and that any attempt to make the state explicitly religious would violate the basic structure.
The Argument for Implicit Existence
The Supreme Court in *Kesavananda Bharati* didn’t create the basic structure out of thin air. Rather, it recognized and formalized principles that were already implicit in the constitutional scheme. The framers of the Constitution, while granting amending power to Parliament, also intended to safeguard the fundamental principles upon which the nation was founded. The earlier cases, as discussed above, demonstrate a judicial inclination to protect these principles, even before the doctrine was explicitly articulated. The doctrine, therefore, can be seen as a logical culmination of the constitutional evolution, rather than a radical departure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the basic structure doctrine wasn’t a novel creation of the Supreme Court but a formal recognition of inherent limitations on the amending power of Parliament, limitations that were implicitly present in the Constitution from its inception. The Court, through its judgments, progressively revealed these implicit limitations, culminating in the explicit articulation of the doctrine in *Kesavananda Bharati*. This doctrine remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, safeguarding the fundamental principles upon which the nation is built and ensuring the preservation of its democratic character.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.