All questions of Basic Structure of the Constitution for Delhi Police Constable Exam

Scope of Article 356 and the misuse of President's Rule

The major issue discussed in the S.R. Bommai case (1994) was the scope of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution and the misuse of President's Rule by the central government.

Background:
- The case arose from the dismissal of the state government of Karnataka by the central government under Article 356.
- The Governor had recommended the imposition of President's Rule citing breakdown of law and order in the state, which was contested by the state government.

Key Points of Discussion:
- The Supreme Court examined the limits of the power of the central government to impose President's Rule in a state.
- It emphasized that Article 356 should only be used as a last resort when the constitutional machinery in a state has completely broken down.
- The court also laid down guidelines to prevent the misuse of Article 356, such as requiring the central government to provide valid reasons for imposing President's Rule.

Significance:
- The S.R. Bommai case set important precedents regarding the use of Article 356, ensuring that it is not misused for political purposes.
- It strengthened the principles of federalism and the autonomy of state governments in India.

In conclusion, the S.R. Bommai case was a landmark judgment that clarified the scope of Article 356 and prevented its misuse, thereby upholding the principles of democracy and federalism in the country.

Kesavananda Bharati Case Overview
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, where the basic structure doctrine was articulated. This doctrine asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments.
Basic Structures Identified
The Supreme Court identified several key features of the Indian Constitution that constitute its basic structure:

• Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is the highest law of the land, overriding all other laws.
• Federal Character of the Constitution: The distribution of powers between the central government and state governments ensures a federal structure.
• Secular Character of the Constitution: The State treats all religions equally and does not favor or discriminate against any religion.

Why Strong Executive Powers is NOT a Basic Structure
Among the options presented, "Strong executive powers" is not considered a basic structure of the Constitution. Here’s why:

• Nature of Executive Powers: The Constitution provides for a parliamentary system where the executive is accountable to the legislature, and thus, the executive's powers are not absolute.
• Focus on Accountability: The Constitution emphasizes the need for checks and balances rather than concentrating power within the executive branch.
• Subject to Amendments: Unlike the basic structures, provisions regarding the executive can be amended to reflect changing political dynamics and needs.

In conclusion, while the supremacy of the Constitution, federal character, and secular nature are foundational, strong executive powers do not constitute a basic structure and can be subject to legislative changes.

The Minerva Mills case (1980) emphasized that the Constitution, and not the Parliament, is supreme. This case reinforced the concept of limited amending power and highlighted the importance of the Constitution's supremacy.

The primary purpose of the Basic Structure Doctrine is to preserve the core principles and philosophy of the original Constitution. It ensures that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution, known as its "basic structure," cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament. This doctrine helps maintain the integrity of the Constitution's foundational values.

The 39th Amendment Act: An Overview
The 39th Amendment Act, enacted in 1975 during the Emergency period in India, had significant political implications, particularly concerning the electoral process and judicial oversight.
Key Provisions of the 39th Amendment
- Judicial Immunity for Key Officials: The amendment specifically targeted the electoral processes of certain high-ranking officials. It placed the elections of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the purview of judicial review. This meant that any election disputes or challenges regarding these positions could not be examined or adjudicated by the courts.
- Political Context: The timing of the amendment was crucial. During the Emergency, the government sought to consolidate power and limit judicial interference, which was perceived as a threat to the authority of the ruling party. By insulating these elections from judicial scrutiny, the government aimed to secure its political standing and prevent legal challenges to its authority.
- Implications for Democracy: This amendment raised concerns about the erosion of democratic principles in India. By limiting judicial oversight, it posed a risk to the checks and balances that are essential for a functioning democracy. Critics argued that it undermined the judiciary's role in safeguarding electoral integrity.
Conclusion
In summary, the 39th Amendment Act played a pivotal role during the Emergency by placing the elections of key constitutional figures beyond judicial scrutiny, which had lasting implications for the relationship between the executive and judiciary in India.

The case of Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992) added the concept of "Rule of Law" to the list of basic features of the Indian Constitution.

The principle that the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment" was established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and can be restricted by the concept of the basic structure. This case established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the principle that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution does not include the power to destroy it. The judgment implied that while the Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot rewrite its fundamental structure.