All questions of Basic Structure of the Constitution for BPSC (Bihar) Exam

The Golaknath case (1967) marked a significant shift in the interpretation of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court. The court reversed its earlier stance in the Shankari Prasad Case (1951) and the Sajjan Singh Case (1965) that Fundamental Rights can be amended.

Background:
The Constitution of India provides for a procedure to amend the Constitution under Article 368. However, the question arose whether the Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, can be amended or not. In the Shankari Prasad Case (1951), the Supreme Court held that the Fundamental Rights can be amended like any other provision of the Constitution. In the Sajjan Singh Case (1965), the court reaffirmed its earlier stance.

Golaknath Case:
In the Golaknath Case (1967), the Supreme Court reversed its earlier stance and held that the Fundamental Rights are the basic features of the Constitution and cannot be amended. The court held that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 does not include the power to abrogate or take away the Fundamental Rights.

Impact:
The Golaknath case had far-reaching implications on the amending power of the Parliament. It restricted the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and placed certain limitations on it. The case also paved the way for the doctrine of Basic Structure, which was propounded in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).

Conclusion:
The Golaknath case was a landmark judgment in the constitutional history of India. It played a crucial role in defining the amending power of the Parliament and protecting the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.

The correct answer is option 'D' - The unicameral system of government.

Explanation:
The Kesavananda Bharati case, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1973, is a landmark judgment that defined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. The basic structure doctrine lays down the principle that certain features of the Constitution are beyond the amending power of the Parliament and cannot be altered or destroyed.

The basic structure features of the Indian Constitution, as identified by the Kesavananda Bharati case judgment, include:

a) Supremacy of the Constitution:
- The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws and actions of the government must be in conformity with it.
- This ensures the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law.

b) Unity and sovereignty of India:
- The Indian Constitution declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic.
- It guarantees the unity and integrity of the nation and prohibits any act that undermines the sovereignty of India.

c) The democratic and republican form of government:
- The Constitution establishes a democratic system of government where the power is vested in the people.
- It provides for representative institutions, such as the Parliament and State Legislatures, where elected representatives make laws and govern the country.
- It also declares India to be a republic, where the head of state is elected and not a hereditary monarch.

d) The unicameral system of government:
- The unicameral system of government is not a basic structure feature identified by the Kesavananda Bharati case judgment.
- The Indian Constitution provides for a bicameral system of government at the federal level, with the Parliament consisting of two houses - the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States).
- The bicameral system ensures a system of checks and balances and allows for wider representation and deliberation.

In conclusion, the basic structure features of the Indian Constitution, as identified by the Kesavananda Bharati case judgment, do not include the unicameral system of government. The Indian Constitution provides for a bicameral system at the federal level.

Understanding the Basic Structure Doctrine
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle in India that ensures certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments. This doctrine emerged from landmark Supreme Court judgments, primarily the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973.
Application of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The correct answer, option 'B', emphasizes that the Basic Structure Doctrine applies specifically to amendments that can destroy or change the basic philosophical ideas of the original Constitution. Here’s a breakdown of why this is the case:

• Preservation of Core Values: The Constitution embodies fundamental principles such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law. Any amendment that threatens these values is subject to scrutiny under this doctrine.
• Judicial Oversight: The Supreme Court has the authority to review amendments that may infringe upon the basic structure, maintaining a balance between parliamentary power and constitutional integrity.
• Not All Amendments: While all amendments must comply with the Constitution, only those that have the potential to undermine its foundational philosophy are directly impacted by this doctrine. This excludes amendments that merely address procedural or non-fundamental issues.
• Examples: Amendments that affect basic rights, the federal structure, or the independence of the judiciary are often examined under the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Conclusion
In summary, the Basic Structure Doctrine serves as a safeguard for the Constitution's core principles, ensuring that any amendment that could change its fundamental philosophy undergoes rigorous judicial review. Thus, option 'B' accurately reflects the doctrine's focus on preserving the foundational values of the Constitution.

Introduction
The landmark case that brought the Basic Structure Doctrine into the limelight is the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). This case is considered one of the most significant constitutional cases in Indian history.

Background
The Basic Structure Doctrine refers to the idea that there are certain fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be amended by the Parliament. These features form the basic structure of the Constitution and are essential for upholding the principles of democracy, federalism, secularism, and rule of law.

Kesavananda Bharati Case
The Kesavananda Bharati case was brought before the Supreme Court of India in 1973. It challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th Amendment Act, which sought to curtail the power of the judiciary and give the Parliament the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.

Arguments
The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, argued that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution should not extend to altering its basic structure, as it would undermine the principles of democratic governance and violate the fundamental rights of the citizens. The Attorney General, on behalf of the government, argued that the Parliament should have the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the basic structure.

Judgment
In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court, by a narrow margin of 7-6, held that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. The Court recognized the basic structure as an essential feature of the Constitution that cannot be abrogated.

Impact
The Kesavananda Bharati case laid down the foundation for the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has since become an integral part of Indian constitutional law. This doctrine acts as a safeguard against arbitrary amendments to the Constitution and protects the fundamental principles enshrined in it. It ensures that the basic structure of the Constitution, including principles of democracy, federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights, remains intact and unalterable.

Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case was a landmark moment in Indian constitutional history. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has played a crucial role in upholding the principles of democracy, federalism, and fundamental rights. The judgment in this case reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding its basic structure.

The Basic Structure Doctrine:

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a principle in Indian constitutional law that states that certain features of the Indian Constitution are so fundamental and essential that they cannot be destroyed or altered through amendments by the Parliament. This doctrine was established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973.

Background:

Before the Kesavananda Bharati case, there was a prevailing belief that the Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution. However, this case brought about a significant shift in the understanding of constitutional amendments and the limits of parliamentary power. The case challenged the validity of the 24th Amendment Act, which sought to curtail the power of the judiciary to review constitutional amendments.

Principle of Basic Structure Doctrine:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but this power is not absolute. The court recognized that there are certain basic features and essential elements of the Constitution that cannot be altered as they form the core foundation of the Constitution.

Features of Basic Structure:

The Basic Structure Doctrine does not explicitly define the features that constitute the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. However, through various judgments, the Supreme Court has identified certain features as part of the basic structure. These include:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws must conform to its provisions.
2. Sovereign, Democratic, and Republic nature of India: The principles of democracy, republicanism, and sovereignty of the nation are inherent in the Constitution.
3. Rule of Law: The Constitution establishes the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
4. Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions is an essential feature.
5. Fundamental Rights: The protection and enforcement of fundamental rights are integral to the Constitution.
6. Separation of Powers: The Constitution establishes a separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
7. Federalism: The distribution of powers between the central and state governments is a key feature.
8. Secularism: The principle of secularism, which ensures equality of all religions, is a part of the basic structure.

Conclusion:

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a significant development in Indian constitutional law. It places certain limitations on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, ensuring the preservation of its core principles and values. The doctrine acts as a safeguard against any arbitrary change that may undermine the basic structure of the Constitution and helps maintain the integrity and stability of the Indian democratic system.

Waman Rao Case

In the case of Waman Rao v. Union of India, the Supreme Court drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973, and held that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date.

Background
The case of Waman Rao v. Union of India was brought before the Supreme Court of India in 1981. The petitioner, Waman Rao, challenged the constitutional validity of the 31st Amendment Act, 1973, which inserted two new Articles, 31C and 31D, in the Constitution. The petitioner argued that these amendments violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

Key Arguments
The petitioner contended that the Basic Structure Doctrine, as propounded in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, should be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively and that the validity of amendments prior to April 24th, 1973, should not be reopened.

Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, took note of the fact that the doctrine of prospective overruling had been recognized by the Court in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India. This doctrine allows the Court to declare a law unconstitutional but also suspend the operation of the declaration for a certain period of time, giving the legislature an opportunity to rectify the defect.

The Court held that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to April 24th, 1973. This meant that the amendments made to the Constitution before this date would not be subject to review on the grounds of violating the basic structure.

The Court reasoned that applying the Basic Structure Doctrine retrospectively would create uncertainty and instability in the constitutional framework. It was also noted that the doctrine had been recognized only in 1973 and applying it retrospectively would unsettle settled law.

Conclusion
In the Waman Rao case, the Supreme Court held that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to April 24th, 1973. This interpretation provided clarity and stability to the constitutional framework, ensuring that amendments made before the recognition of the Basic Structure Doctrine would not be subject to review on the grounds of violating the basic structure.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case:
In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Supreme Court of India struck down Clause (4) of Article 329-A inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975. The court held that this clause was beyond the Parliament's amending power as it destroyed the Constitution's basic features.

Background:
The case originated from the election petition filed by Raj Narain against the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, challenging her election to the Lok Sabha in 1971. The Allahabad High Court found her guilty of corrupt practices and declared her election void. However, she continued to hold the position as the Prime Minister by invoking Article 329-A inserted by the 39th Amendment, which provided certain immunities to elected representatives.

Key Points:
The Supreme Court's decision in this case had several significant implications:

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure: The court, in its landmark judgment, established the doctrine of basic structure, holding that there are certain essential features of the Constitution that cannot be amended by the Parliament. These features form the basic structure and include principles such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law.

2. Validity of 39th Amendment: The Supreme Court declared Clause (4) of Article 329-A inserted by the 39th Amendment as unconstitutional. This clause aimed to nullify the court's judgment in the election petition against Indira Gandhi and protect her from disqualification. The court held that this amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

3. Limitation on Parliament's Amending Power: The judgment in this case imposed limitations on the amending power of the Parliament. It clarified that while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. Amendments that destroy or damage the basic structure of the Constitution will be deemed unconstitutional.

Conclusion:
The Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case was a landmark judgment that established the doctrine of basic structure and limited the Parliament's amending power. By striking down Clause (4) of Article 329-A inserted by the 39th Amendment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and protected its essential features from arbitrary changes. This case has had a lasting impact on the interpretation of the Constitution and the scope of the Parliament's authority to amend it.

Minerva Mills case
The Minerva Mills case is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that added the features of judicial review and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) to the list of basic structural features of the Indian Constitution.

Background
The case arose out of a constitutional challenge to the 42nd Amendment Act, which sought to dilute the power of judicial review and give primacy to the DPSP over Fundamental Rights. The petitioners argued that this amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

Judgment
In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that the features of judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP were essential components of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Constitution must strike a balance between individual rights and the collective welfare of society.

Significance
The Minerva Mills case reaffirmed the doctrine of basic structure and established that any amendment that alters the basic structure of the Constitution is subject to judicial review. This case also highlighted the importance of upholding the fundamental principles of the Constitution, including the harmonious interpretation of Fundamental Rights and DPSP.
In conclusion, the Minerva Mills case played a crucial role in defining the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and ensuring the protection of individual rights and the welfare of society.

Sajjan Singh case (1965)
The Sajjan Singh case of 1965 was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India. Two dissenting judges in this case remarked on the possibility of the fundamental rights of citizens becoming a plaything of the majority party in Parliament.

Background
In this case, the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether the abolition of the Privy Purse, which was guaranteed to the rulers of former Indian princely states by the Constitution, was constitutional. The majority of the judges in the case held that the abolition of the Privy Purse was constitutional, but two judges dissented from this decision.

Concerns raised by dissenting judges
The two dissenting judges in the Sajjan Singh case expressed concerns about the potential misuse of power by the majority party in Parliament. They raised the question of whether fundamental rights, which are supposed to protect the individual against the state, could be compromised by the will of the majority party. They highlighted the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights as an essential aspect of a democratic society.

Significance
The remarks made by the dissenting judges in the Sajjan Singh case raised important questions about the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary, and the need to protect fundamental rights from potential abuse. This case underscored the crucial role of the judiciary in upholding the rights of citizens and ensuring the rule of law in a democratic society.

Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

Background:
The Constitution of India was adopted on 26th January 1950. The Parliament was empowered to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The first amendment was made in 1951, which abolished the right to property as a fundamental right. This amendment was challenged in the Shankari Prasad case.

Contention:
The petitioner contended that Parliament's power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 did not include the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court in its judgment held that the power of amendment conferred on Parliament under Article 368 was plenary, and it included the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. The court observed that the Fundamental Rights were not sacrosanct and could be amended as per the needs of the time and the aspirations of the people.

Significance:
The Shankari Prasad case established the supremacy of Parliament in amending the Constitution. It also paved the way for subsequent amendments to the Constitution, including the 42nd amendment, which added the words "socialist" and "secular" to the preamble of the Constitution and curtailed the power of the judiciary.

Conclusion:
The Shankari Prasad case was a landmark judgment that settled the controversy regarding the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The court upheld the supremacy of Parliament while also recognizing the need to balance the interests of different sections of society.

The Waman Rao case (1981) held that the Basic Structure doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution that took place prior to the Kesavananda Bharati judgement.

Background:
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the Basic Structure doctrine, which states that there are certain essential features of the Constitution that cannot be altered by the Parliament through constitutional amendments. However, there was ambiguity about whether this doctrine could be applied retrospectively to challenge the validity of constitutional amendments that were passed before the Kesavananda Bharati judgement.

Explanation:
The Waman Rao case (1981) dealt with the constitutional validity of the 29th Amendment, which was passed in 1972 before the Kesavananda Bharati judgement. The petitioner argued that the 29th Amendment violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution and should be struck down. However, the Supreme Court held that the Basic Structure doctrine cannot be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment that took place prior to the Kesavananda Bharati judgement. The court reasoned that the doctrine was developed as a tool to prevent future constitutional amendments from violating the Basic Structure, and applying it retrospectively would create unnecessary uncertainty and instability in the constitutional system.

Conclusion:
The Waman Rao case clarified that the Basic Structure doctrine will only apply prospectively to constitutional amendments passed after the Kesavananda Bharati judgement. This ruling has important implications for the interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding its essential features.