DOCTRINE OF

BASIC
STRUCTURE
TEAM 10
What is the Doctrine of Basic Structure?

The basic structure (or doctrine) of the Constitution of India applies only to

constitutional amendments, which state that the Parliament cannot destroy or alter

the basic features of the Indian Constitution.

The features include:

• Supremacy of the constitution.

• Republican and democratic forms of govt.

• Secular character of the constitution.

• Separation of power.

• Federal character of the constitution.

Basic Ideas


The constitution empowers the Parliament and the State Legislatures to make laws within their
respective jurisdiction.


Bills to amend the constitution can only be introduced in the Parliament, but this power is not
absolute.


Supreme Court has the power to declare that law to be invalid.


The Supreme Court has laid down the basic structure doctrine.


According to the doctrine, the Parliament cannot destroy or alter the basic structure of the
doctrine.
Evolution of the Basic Structure

The concept developed gradually with the interference of the judiciary from time to time to
protect the basic rights of the people and the ideals and philosophy of the constitution.

 The First Constitution Amendment Act, 1951 was challenged in the Shankari Prasad vs.
Union of India case.

 In the Golak Nath vs State of Punjab case in 1967, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier
decision.

 The Parliament, in 1971, passed the 24th Constitution Amendment Act.

 In 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala case, the Supreme Court upheld the
validity of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act by reviewing its decision in the Golaknath
case.
1. Mineral Mills Case

 Mineral Mills Ltd is a textile company in Karnataka.

 Nationalised by Central Government because of poor performance under the Sick Textile
Undertaking Act, of 1974.

 Petitioners challenged section 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act 1976.

Issues

 Whether Section 4 and 55 damage the basic structure

 Whether Directive Principles Of State Policy have primacy over fundamental

rights
Judgement

The ruling struck down Section 4 and 55 9f the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. It
was found that clause 4 of Section 55 was damaging basic structure and Clause 5
barred judicial review
Effects

 Supreme Court says that Parliament cannot exercise its limited power to
grant itself on unlimited power.

 The power to amend is not a power to destroy

 The tussle resulted into the fact that now every amendment is subjected to
judicial review.

 Supreme Court is the final interpreter of all amendments.

2. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs
State of Kerala Case, 1973

• He challenged the Kerala land reforms legislation in 1970, which imposed restrictions
on the management of the religious property.

• The case was challenged under Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously
owned property without government interference.

• A 13-judge Bench was set up by the Supreme Court, the biggest so far, to hear the case.
Articles related:

Bharati moved to the supreme court to enforce the right that was guaranteed to him under
the:

• Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion

• Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs
• Article 14: Right to equality
• Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property
• Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property
Issues before the court:

Whether the following are constitutionally valid?

• 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971
• 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972
The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.

The question underlying the case also included: Was the power of Parliament to amend the
Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, or abrogate any part of the
Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights?
 Judgement

The landmark judgement was delivered on 24th April 1973 by a razor-thin majority of 7:6 wherein the
majority held that any provision of the Indian Constitution can be amended by the Parliament in order to
fulfil its socio-economic obligations that were guaranteed to the citizens as given in the Preamble, provided
that such amendment did not change the Constitution’s basic structure. The minority, however, in their
dissenting opinion, were wary of giving the Parliament unlimited amending power.

The court held that the 24th Constitutional Amendment was entirely valid. But it found the first part of the
25th Constitutional Amendment to be intra vires and the second part of the same ultra vires.
3. IR Coelho Case

● Also known as the Ninth Schedule Case

● IR Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu case gave the landmark judgment which interpreted the
Doctrine of Basic Structure which was laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

● The case arose because of the reference made by a5-judge Constitution Bench in 1999 after the
Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) was struck down by the
Supreme Court in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu
Issues

● The basic issue before the court was whether it was permissible for Parliament to insert laws into
the Ninth schedule post-Keshavananda Bharati case in order to make them immune from judicial
review on the basis of the basic structure doctrine.

● It is pertinent to mention here that since the Ninth Schedule was inserted, various pieces of
agrarian reform legislation were placed in it but with the advent of time, various other pieces of
legislation were arbitrarily and indiscriminately placed in the Ninth Schedule to make them
immune from judicial review despite the fact that most of them had nothing to do with the agrarian
or socio-economic reforms.
Issues (cont..)

• It was amply clear that that legislature in the guise of the Ninth Schedule was trying to
escape not only the limitations imposed by the basic structure doctrine but also bypass the
judicial review of the legislature that were manifestly ultra vires to the Constitution
Ruling

● The basic structure doctrine is the very essence of the Constitution and any acts, rules and
regulations that violate its essence cannot be allowed to continue in this brazen manner.
● If any laws in the Ninth Schedule were inconsistent with Part III, they were liable to be struck
down by the Court.
● The Ninth Schedule was a part of the Constitution and as such any alterations made to these parts
which bypass the restrictions that are in place cannot be allowed to continue to the detriment of
well-established principles.
● These insertions into the Ninth Schedule are an attempt to invade into the sphere of fundamental
rights and as such these invasions have to be dealt with in order to preserve inherent rights.
Conclusion

• Today there is no dispute regarding the existence of the doctrine, the only problem that arises time
and again is the contents of the same.

• Certain contents have been reaffirmed again and again by the Courts whereas some of them are
still in the process of deliberations.

• The basic structure doctrine grants the fine balance between flexibility and rigidity that should be
present in the amending powers of any Constitution.