Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Judicial review, the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, is an inherent part of the Indian constitutional scheme, though not explicitly mentioned. This power was initially understood within the framework of Article 13, which allows for the invalidation of laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. However, the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case introduced the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine, fundamentally altering the landscape of judicial review. This doctrine posits that while the Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its ‘basic structure’ or essential features. This has significantly enhanced the Supreme Court’s power to scrutinize constitutional amendments and governmental actions, acting as a check on potential majoritarian overreach.
Evolution of Judicial Review in India
Prior to 1973, judicial review in India was largely confined to examining the compatibility of laws with Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The power stemmed from Article 13, which declared laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void. Cases like A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) demonstrated a relatively restrained approach to judicial review, prioritizing legislative intent.
The Emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The 24th Amendment Act of 1971 sought to curtail judicial review by explicitly granting Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This led to the challenge in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). A 13-judge bench ruled that while Parliament possessed amendatory power, it could not alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. This doctrine was not explicitly defined but was understood to encompass fundamental features like secularism, democracy, federalism, judicial review, and the separation of powers.
How the Doctrine Enhanced Judicial Review
- Expanded Scope of Review: The Basic Structure doctrine broadened the scope of judicial review beyond Fundamental Rights. The Court could now strike down amendments even if they didn’t violate Fundamental Rights, but threatened the basic structure.
- Strengthened Constitutional Supremacy: It reinforced the supremacy of the Constitution by establishing a limit on the Parliament’s amending power.
- Increased Judicial Activism: The doctrine encouraged judicial activism, with the Court actively interpreting and safeguarding the basic features of the Constitution.
- Landmark Cases Post-Kesavananda: Subsequent cases like Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) demonstrate the application of the Basic Structure doctrine in striking down laws and executive actions deemed to violate its principles.
Limitations on Enhanced Judicial Review
Despite the enhanced power, the Supreme Court’s judicial review is not absolute. Several limitations exist:
- Self-Imposed Restraint: The Court has, at times, exercised self-imposed restraint, particularly in areas involving policy matters, recognizing the separation of powers.
- Political Pressure: The Court is not immune to political pressure, although its independence is constitutionally guaranteed.
- Judicial Appointments: The process of judicial appointments, while evolving, can be influenced by the executive, potentially affecting the ideological composition of the Court.
- Doctrine of Eclipse: Laws declared unconstitutional are not necessarily void ab initio but may remain in a state of eclipse until amended to conform to the Constitution.
Recent Developments & Challenges
Recent challenges to the Basic Structure doctrine have emerged, particularly concerning the dilution of secularism and federalism. The debate surrounding the 99th Constitutional Amendment (NJAC) and its subsequent striking down by the Court further highlighted the ongoing tension between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review. The increasing use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) also presents both opportunities and challenges for the exercise of judicial review.
| Case | Year | Key Principle Affirmed/Applied |
|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | Basic Structure Doctrine established; limits on amending power |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | Expanded interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | Secularism as a basic feature; limitations on the imposition of President’s Rule |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu | 2007 | Ninth Schedule amendments subject to Basic Structure review |
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Basic Structure has undeniably enhanced the power of judicial review in India, transforming it from a primarily rights-based review to a more comprehensive examination of constitutional fidelity. While limitations exist, the doctrine remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism, safeguarding the fundamental principles upon which the nation is founded. The ongoing dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature, coupled with evolving societal norms, will continue to shape the application and interpretation of this crucial doctrine in the years to come.
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.