.

-«
Basic Stru ctur e of
CHAP ]! the Con stitu tion

EMERGENCE OF THE BASIC a 'transcend ental and immutabl e' position

i
_ STRUCTURE
The question whether Fundamen tal Rights can
and hence the Parliamen t cannot abridge or
take away ~ny of these rights. A constituti onal
amendme nt act is also a law within the mean-
be amended by the Parliamen t under Article ing of Article 13 and hence, would be void for
368 came for considera tion of the Supreme violating any of the Fundame ntal Rights.
Court within a year of the Constituti on coming The Parliamen t reacted to the Supreme
1
into force. In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), Court's judgemen t in the Golak Nath case
the constitutio nal validity of the First Amend- (1967) by enacting the 24th Amendm ent Act
ment Act (1951 ), which curtailed the right to (1971). This Act amended Articles 13 and 368.
property, was challenge d. The Supreme Court It declared that the Parliamen t has the power
ruled that the power of the Parliamen t to to abridge or take away any of the Fundame ntal
amend the Constituti on under Article 368 also Rights under Article 368 and such an act will
includes the power to amend Fundame ntal not be a law under the meaning of Article 13.3
Rights. The word 'law' in Article 13 includes However, in the Kesavanan da Bharati case
only ordinary laws and not the constituti onal (1973), the Supreme Court overruled its judge-
amendmen t acts (constitue nt laws). Therefore, ment in the Golak Nath case (1967). It upheld
the Parliamen t can abridge or take away any the validity of the 24th Amendm ent Act (1971)
of the Fundamen tal Rights by enacting a con- and stated that Parliamen t is empower ed to
stitutional amendme nt act and such a law will abridge or take away any of the Fundame ntal
not be void under Article 13. Rights. At the same time, it laid down a new
1
,Again, in the Sajjan Singh case • (1964), the doctrine of the 'basic structure ' ( or 'basic
Supreme Court re-affirme d the above stand. features') of the Constituti on. It ruled that
In other words, the court held that a constitu- the constitue nt power of Parliame nt under
tional amendme nt act made under Article 368 Article 368 does not enable it to alter the 'basic
is not a law within the meaning of Article 13. structure' of the Constituti on. This means that
2
But in the Golak Nath case (1967), the the Parliamen t cannot abridge or take away a
Supreme Court revened its earlier stand. In Fundamen tal Right that forms a part of the
this cue, the constituti onal validity of the 'basic structure' of the Constituti on.
Seventeenth Amendm ent Act (1964), which The doctrine of basic structure of the con-
inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Sched- stitution was reaffirmed and applied by the
ule, was challenge d. The Supreme Court Supreme Court in the Indira Nehru Gandhi
ruled that the Fu.Jidamental Rights are given case38 (1975). In this case, the Supreme Court
invalidate d a provision of the 39th Amendm ent
~Pmtad aVntono flndia(l 951) 3Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala ( 1973)
!&IJJan 8in,h w.. 8tlli.ofRajaatlum (1964) 38Jndira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975)
2GoL,k Nadt YI. State ofPunjab (1967)
 12 8 _{J' Indian Polity
A ct (1 97 5) w hi ch
.
ke pt th e el ec tio n
1 ·n o th e Pr im e M in di sp u: es ELEMENTS OF T ~
m vo vi o is te r an d th e Sp ea H E BASIC
f Lo k Sa bh a ou ts id . • d" f on of
er STRUCTURE
o rt s Th e co ur t e th e JU flS ic i. al l
sa id th at th is pr ov . T he pr es en t po si
~: ;o nd th e am en di is io n wa_s ti on is th at th e
ng po w er of Pa rl ia m un de r A rt ic le 36 8 Parlia
af fe ct ed th e ba si c st
ru ct ur e of th e const1_
~n t ~s it
C on st itu tio n in cl ~d
ca n am en d an y Pa
rt i;e-
A ga in , th e Pa rl ia m
da ll y in no va te d do
tu~101~.
en t re ac te d _to tl11s
Ju di :
bu t w it ho ut af fe ct
in g th e Fu_ndamen
in g th e 'b as ic struc
ta1
0
ai;:
ture• ofthe
ct ri ne of 'b as ic st ru co ns ti tu ti on . H ow
by en ac tin g th e 42 ct ur e ev er , th e Su pr em e
nd A m en dm en t A to de fi ne or cl ~r if Co urt iaJtt
T hi s A ct am en de d ct (1 97 6) . y as to w h? t c~ns
A rt ic le 36 8 an d de •b as ic st ru ct ur e of titutes the
th at th er e is no li m ~l ar ed th e Co ns ti~ ut 10 n.
it at io n on th e co ns va ri ou s ju dg em en ts From the
po w er of Pa rl ia m en ti tu en t , th e fo llo w in g ha ve
t an d no am en dm as 'b as ic fe at ur es em etg e4
be qu es tio ne d in en t ca n ' of th e C on st itu tio
an y co ur t on an y m en ts of th e 'b as ic n or e1e,
in cl ud in g th at of th gr ou nd st ru ct ur e' of th e CO
e co nt ra ve nt io n of 1. Su pr em ac y of nstitutioQ;
th e Fu nd am en ta l an y of th e C on st it ut io n
R ig ht s. 2. So ve re ig n, de
However, t11e Su pr em m oc ra ti c an d repu
.Mills ca se4 (1 98 0)
e C ou rt in th e M in er
oa na tu re of th e In di blicaa
in va lid at ed th is pr ov an po li ty
it ex cl ud ed ju di ci al is io n as 3. Se cu la r ch ar
re vi ew w hi ch is a ac te r of th e C on st
'b as ic 4. Se pa ra tio n of itu tio n
fe at ur e' of th e C on po w er s be tw ee n th
st itu tio n. A pp ly in g tu re , th e ex ec ut iv e legia]a.
tr in e of 'b as ic st ru ct th e do c- e an d th e ju di ci ar
ur e' w ith re sp ec t to s. Fe de ra l ch ar ac te r of y
36 8, th e co ur t he A rt ic le
ld th at : 6. U ni ty an d in
th e C on st itu tio n
"S in ce th e C on st itu te gr it y of th e na ti
tio n ha d co nf er re d 7. w el fa re st at e on
lim ite d am en di ng a (s oc io -e co no m ic ju
po w er on th e Pa rl 8. Ju di ci al re vi st ic e)
m en t, th e Pa rl ia m ia - ew
en t ca nn ot un de r 9. Fr ee do m an d
ex er ci se of th at li th e di gn it y of th e in di
m it ed po w er en la IO . Pa rl ia m en ta vi du af
th at ve ry po w er in rg e ry sy st em
to an ab so lu te po w 11 . R ul e of la w
In de ed , a li m it ed er . 12 . H ar m on y an
am en di ng po w er d ba la nc e be tw ee
on e of th e ba si c fe is n Funda.
at ur es of th e C on st m en ta l R ig ht s an d
tu tio n an d, th er ef i- D ir ec tiv e Pr in ci pl
or e, th e li m it at io 13 . Pr in ci pl e of
eq ua li ty el ,
on th at po w er ca nn ns
ot be de st ro ye d. In 14 . Fr ee an d fa
ir el ec ti on s
ot he r w or ds , Pa rl ia
m en t ca nn ot , un de 15 . In de pe nd en
ce of Ju di ci ar y
ar tic le 36 8, ex pa nd r
its am en di ng po w er 16 . L im it ed po w
er of Pa rl ia m en t to
so as to ac qu ir e fo am en &
r its el f th e ri gh t to th e C on st it ut io n
re pe al or ab ro ga te
th e C on st itu tio n or 17 . Ef fe ct iv e ac
ce ss to ju st ic e
de st ro y its ba si c fe to
at ur es . T he do ne e 18 . Pr in ci pl es (o
a lim ite d po w er ca of r es se nc e) un de rl
nn ot by th e ex er ci da rn en ta l ri gh ts yi ng
of th at po w er co nv se
er t th e lim ite d po w 19 . Po w er s of
th e Su pr em e C ou
in to an un lim ite d er rt
one". A rt ic le s 32 , 13 6, 14
1 an 6
A ga in , in th e W am 20 . Po w er s of th d 14 2
an Ra o ca se5 (1 98 e H ig h C ou rt s un de
Su pr em e C ou rt ad he 0) , th e 22 6 an d 22 7 7 r A1 '1w ;.J .,.
re d to th e do ct ri ne
'b as ic st ru ct ur e' an of th e 6
Ar tic le 32 (R em ed
d
w ou ld ap pl y to co fu rt he r cl ar if ie d th at it rig ht s in cl ud in g
ie s fu r en fo rc em en
to ffm ad al Dl 'l_ .
ns
en ac te d af te r A pr il tit ut io na l am en dm en ts ap pe al by th e Su
wr its ), Article 13
6 (S pe cia l lea ftt
24 , 19 73 (i. e. , th
th e ju dg em en t in e da te da re d by Su pr empr em e Co ur t), Artid eon 14 1 (L aw
ca se ). th e Ke sa ua na nd a Bh of e Co ur t to be bind .
in a an
al l CO lll d~
ar at i an d Ar tic le 14 2 ( E nrorcement of dec:l!Dea d _ _
4 Su pr em e Co ur t an to disCCJVCIY, etcoa.).
.,_ .
M in er va M ill s vs. Un 7 d or de rs as
5 io n of In di a (1 98 0) Ar tic le 22 6 (P ow to iaaUe ce rta lQ
Wa rn an Ra o vs . Un er of H ig h Co ':: 5SU
io n of In di a (1 98 0) w rit s) an d Ar tic 7 ~~ pe riu .., .c te ._
over al l co ur ts byleth22e H ig h
u n ).
 -
~
-----
Basic Structure of the Constitution 129

evolution of the Basic Structure of the Constitution

Nam• of th• CIIH (Year) Elements of the Ba5ic Structure (As Declared by the
Supremo Court)
3
Kesavannndo Bharat/ Case (1973) (popularly Supremacy of the Constitution
1. the Fundament.:,1Rights Case) Separation of powers between the legislature, the
knOWn 1) 5
executive and the Judiciary
3. Republic and democratic form of government
4. Secular character of the constitution
5. Federal character of the constitution
6. Sovereignty and unity of India
7. Freedom and dignity of the Individual
8. Mandate to bulld a welfare state
9. Parliamentary System
Indira N~hru Gandhi Case:a,, (1975) (popularly 1. lndla as a sovereign democratic republle
2 2. Equality of status and opportunity of an lndMdual
kn<>Wl1 as the Election Case)
3. Secularism and freedom of conscience and rellgk>n
4. Government of laws and not of men (I.e., Rule of Law)
5. Judicial review
6. Free and fair electlons which IS Implied tn ~ a c y

Minerva MIiis Case• (1980) 1. Limited power of Parliament to amend the constit ution
3.
2. Judicial review
3. Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and
directive principles

~~·:. Centtal ~, ~~-Ud. Case• (1980)'------~ EffectJve access to justice

I Welfare State (Socio-economic Justice)

9
5. Shim Singh)# Case (1980)
·s.P. ~ t h Kuma~ Case'° (1986) 1. Rule of law
2. Judicial review
7. P. Sambamurthy Case" (1986) 1. Rule of law
2. Judicial review

•~~~ Powers of the Supreme Court under ArtJcles 32, 136. 141
2
lal-~ • ~~Uon Case' (1991) and 142
I. Indra Sawhney Case'3 (1992) (popularly Rule of law
known as the Manda! Case)
~-~ ~•Nd ea"~e~(1992) Independence of Judiciary
11. IClhoto Hollohan Case15 (1992) (popularly 1. Free and fair elections
known as Defection Case) 2. Sovereign, democratic, republican structure
- . ,. ~ - . .

hunath Rao ease• (1993) 1. Principle of equality

- - - - - - - - - ~- -- - -- ;:;.:.__Unlty and Integrity of India
-2
--
(Contd.)
I
,'Ca_tral Coal Fields Ltd., vs. Jaiswal Coal Co. ( 1980)
:,,,m Singhji vs. Urrion of India (1980)
u U. Sampath K14mar vs. Union of India ( 1986)
,f- Sambamurthy vs. State of A .P. ( 1986)
.,lJdhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat ( 1991)
,ln4ra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992)
ltKMmur J>adma f>ra:-;ad vs. Union of India ( 1992)
,,"Cll,,oto llollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992)
huna,11 Rao vs. Union of India (1993)
1 SI.
130 fJt Indian Polity
Name of the Case (Year) Ele m e nts o f the B asic Structure (As D eclared by t he
No. Suprem e Court)

. =· .
I
- - .
Secularism
Democracy
Unity and Integrity of the nation
5 . Social Justice

f!4.·_
15.
L Chanct,- ;Ku;,,~, Ces-;,. (1997) ~· · - · ·~--
lnd~a Sawhney II Case-;9 (19--;) - -- ·-
-- :~l:11:;~;:;h Courts ·under Ar1ldes
;rl~~ip;e-;,f -; qu;llty- · - ... - ---- . - -- -- ~
~
[ ~6. - ~ , India Judg:·~ Ass;;i~ti; n C~s~ (2001) _:_· ·- ,nde~;derrtJud~f~I system ·· · ~
21
17. Ku/dip Nayar Case (2006) 1. Democracy
2. Free and fair elections

L,a~- -~--Nag;raj C;s~~ (2~6L --· ... _ -- .. ...

'·'J.
.
___,.,, __-- - -~- ··- ----· -·
- ____
Principle of equalfty ~.~ .. •.• ~:
19. I.R. Coelho Case23 (2007) (popularly known 1. Rule of law
as IX Schedule Case) 2. Separation of powers
3. Principles (or essence) underlying fundamental rights
4. Judicial review
5. Principle of equality
.... - - _ ,.. --r --- - ,·- -...,.,. ... ---- - -~ --•--ii'"'-·.
! 20. Ram Jethmalanl Case 24 (2011) Powers of the Supreme Court
._ - - - - - · - - - . - -=--~ ....._ .. - - -·--- - - - - - - - - ---
25
21. Namit Sharma Case (2012) Freedom and dignity of the Individual

22. Madras Bar Association Case26 (2014) 1. Judicial review

2 . _Powers of the High

11
S .R. Bommaivs. U nion of India (1994)
13 L Chandra Kllmar vs. Union of India (1997)
19 /ndra Sawhncy II vs. Union of India (1999)
20
A ll India Judge's Association vs. Union of India (2001)
21
Kuldip Nayar vs. Union of India (2006)
22
M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006)
23
I.R. Coelho vs. State of7ami1 Nad.u (2007)
Z◄Ram Jethmalani vs. Union of India (2011)
25
N amit Sharma vs. Union of India (2012)
ZhMadras Bar Association vs. Union of India (2014)