Basic Structure Doctrine & Rule of Law:

Introduction:
The expression ‘basic structure’ has not been used directly in our constitution.
But over time and through interpretation of the Constitutional provisions and
through judicial pronouncements the idea has been established that the
Parliament must not make any law that hampers the basic framework of the
Constitution. Basic structure doctrine helps us to protect the rights and freedom
of the individuals and it protects the democratic structure of the country intact.
It helps us to maintain chief purpose of the Constitution.
The concept of basic structure was made popular by the Supreme Court in the
case of ‘Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala’. Though Supreme Court did
not point out the basic features of the basic structure, with the help of judicial
pronouncements we can point out such features:
1. secular character of the Constitution.
2. federal character of the Constitution.
3. separation of powers.
4. federal character of the Constitution.
5. separation of powers.
6. protection of freedom of the individuals.
7. democratic and republic character of the nation.
8. integrity and sovereignty of the nation.
The basic framework of the Constitution cannot be altered even by way of
amendment. The Supreme Court shall have the authority to invalidate any law
or amendment on the ground that such law or amendment hampers the basic
structure of the Constitution.
Evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine:
The evolution of the concept of basic structure doctrine can be discussed in light
of a series of judicial pronouncements. They are as follows:
1. Shankari Prasad V. Union of India:
The case of Shankari Prasad is one among the initial cases wherein the Supreme
Court initiated to develop the concept of basic structure. While adjudicating the
case the Court was concerned about the constitutional validity of the First
Amendment Act, 1951 by virtue of which the Parliament restricted the right to
property. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the same and
opined that the Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution
including the fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Constitution.
2. Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan:
During the advent of agrarian reforms, the Parliament passed the Constitution
(Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 to further amendment of Art. 31A and
introduced a series of statues within the ambit of the ninth Schedule. The
petitioners being aggrieved by the amendment challenged the constitutional
validity of the same.
The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the impugned
amendment and following the decision of ‘Shankari Prasad v. Union of India’
opined that the Parliament would have the authority to amend any part of the
Constitution including fundamental rights both prospectively and
retrospectively under Article 368 of the Constitution.
But Justice Mudholkar and Justice Hidayatullah in their dissenting opinion
stated that since the rights enshrined under the Part 3 of the Constitution had
been termed as fundamental rights, it surely indicated that such rights are
inherent and fundamental to every citizen. Hence such rights could not be
amended by way of amendment.
3. I.C. Golaknath V. State of Punjab:
In the case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the constitutional validity of the
Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 was questioned when the
petitioners were restricted to hold more than 30 acres of land by virtue of the
Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953. The validity of the Act was
challenged as because it was violative of Art. 14 and Art. 19(1)(g). The
aggrieved persons could not hold the additional amount of land and could not
rent it out due to above stated reason causing them financial loss. It was the case
when an eleven - Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, pronounced
the decision in a majority of 6:5 that under any circumstances the fundamental
rights could not be changed.
4. Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala:
The above referred case played a significant role in the development of the
concept of basic structure. In this case the Supreme Court, in a ratio of 7:6
majority the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 24th
amendment that the Parliament shall have the authority to take away or abridge
the fundamental rights and opined that the Parliament shall have the authority to
amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights. But such an
amendment must not be done in a manner that goes against the basic structure
of the Constitution.
Based on this ruling we can say that the Supreme Court shall have the power to
invalidate any amendment made by the Parliament if the same goes against the
basic structure of the Constitution.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi V. Raj Narain:
In this case the Supreme Court invalidated clause 4 of Article 329A which was
inserted by the 39th amendment of the Constitution as because such an
amendment went beyond the amending power of the Parliament and thus the
same violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
While the proclamation of national emergency was in force the parliament
approved 39th Constitutional amendment by virtue of which it was declared that
that election of the Prime Minister, the President and the Vice President and the
speaker of the Lok Sabha must not be a subject to judicial review.
The Government took this step to block Smt. Indira Gandhi from being tried by
the Allahabad High Court for her engagement in unfair electoral practices and
procedures.
5. Minerva Mills V. Union of India:
By virtue of 42nd Constitutional amendment it was declared that there should be
no limitation on the constituent power of the Parliament in respect of
amendment of the Constitution under Art. 368 of the Constitution and no
amendment could be questioned in any Court of law on any ground including
violation of fundamental rights. In this Particular case the Supreme Court
invalidated the modifications made to the Constitution by way of the 42nd
Constitutional amendment as because they were not in conformity with the
fundamental structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court declared the
supremacy of the Constitution, not the Parliament. Through this ruling the
Supreme Court expanded the scope and ambit of the basic structure and opined
that an equilibrium between the Part 3 and Part 4 of the Constitution and
judicial must form the part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
In the case of ‘Waman Rao v. Union of India’, the Supreme Court further
adhered to the principle of basic structure and clarified that the concept of basic
structure shall have application amendment that takes place after the date of
pronouncement of judgement in the case of ‘Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala’, i.e., 24.04.1973.
Significance:
(i) The concept of basic structure serves as evidence that the majority rule by
force cannot alter the basic principles of the Constitution.
(ii) It acts as a limit on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution,
thus it protects the Indian democracy. If the Parliament would have unlimited
power in respect of amendment of the Constitution then it could have converted
India into a totalitarian state.
(iii) One of the features of basic structure is the separation of powers by virtue
of which the Indian Judiciary is empowered to work independently without
being influenced by the other two organs of the State.
(iv) It allows the individuals to enjoy the fundamental rights that the
Constitution has given to them and the State shall have no right to modify such
rights in such a manner that hampers the basic structure of the Constitution.
Rule of Law:
According to Edward Coke ‘rule of law’ means:
(i) absence of arbitrary power on the part of the Government.
(ii) no individual is to be punished or shall be made to suffer in terms of body or
property except for clear violation of the law established in ordinary legal
manner before the ordinary courts of law.
Later on A.V. Dicey expanded the concept of rule of law which consisted of
three essential elements:
1. Supremacy of the law:
The law shall have authority over all the people in general including those
people who are associated with administration of the law. The law makers shall
give justified reasons under the law while exercising their powers in respect of
making laws and administration thereof.
2. Equality before the law:
Every person shall be treated equally by the law irrespective of his social
position and status. There shall be no special privileges for any person belongs
to any particular group in the society.
3. Predominance of legal spirit:
Dicey believed that there must be certain authority in our society which ensures
that the rule of law is being maintained in our society and such function must be
performed by the Courts of law. It is the duty of the Courts to impart justice
without being influenced by others.
Rule of Law and the Constitution of India:
The Indian Constitution has adopted the principles of rule of law through its
provisions:
1. Article 13 says that all laws in force immediately before the commencement
of the Constitution has to be in conformity with the provisions of the Part 3 of
the Constitution, otherwise such a law shall be void to the extent of its
inconsistency.
The same theory is applicable to the post constitution law as per Art. 13(2).
2. The Constitution has adopted the concept of right to equality in terms of
equality before law and equal protection of the law under Art. 14.
It says that every individual shall be treated equally within the territory of India
irrespective of his social position and status. Equally situated person shall be
treated equally. Article 14 permits reasonable classification to promote equality
in the true sense of the term.
3. Under Art. 21 no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal
liberty except by the procedure established by the law.
In the case of ‘Bachhan Singh V. State of Punjab’ the court pointed out three
basic elements of rule of and they are as follows:
(i) Judiciary must be independent to provide protections against the excesses of
executive and legislative authorities to the individuals.
(ii) even though the legislature is democratically elected, yet it should not enjoy
unfettered authority and power.
(iii) a democratically elected legislature only shall have the authority to enact
laws in respect of any matter.
Relationship between basic structure and rule of law:
The relationship between basic structure doctrine and rule of law can be
summarized in the following manner:
(i) Basic Structure doctrine helps in protection of the concept of rule of law by
preventing destruction of the core principles of Constitution by way of
amendment.
(ii) Basic structure doctrine and rule of law helps us to maintain democracy in
our country. In absence of basic structure doctrine and rule of law our country
would have converted into a totalitarian state.
(iii) Both concepts put a limit on the authority of the State. Rule of law ensures
that legal principles are being followed in day to day governance and basic
structure doctrine prevents alteration of fundamental framework of the
Constitution.
(iv) Judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution. It applies rule of law while
adjudicating regular cases and applies basic structure doctrine while
determining the constitutional validity of any law or any amendment thereof or
of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
In conclusion we can say that the basic structure doctrine was introduced by the
Supreme Court and has played a significant role in evolution thereof. Initially it
was decided that the fundamental rights are not subject to any kind of
modification or alteration by way of amendment. In the case of ‘I.C. Golaknath
v. State of Punjab’ , it was held that Part 3 of the Constitution could not be
amended under any circumstances. In earlier cases it was decided that
fundamental rights are also subject to modification. Finally in the case of
‘Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala’, it was held that fundamental rights
can be amended but without hampering the basic structure of the Constitution.
Rule of means abiding by the legal principles in day to day governance by the
organs of the state and it ensures the concept of equality among the individuals,
authority of the law and supremacy of the Courts in our society. Both the
concepts allow democratic structure of the country to be maintained.