Test: Basic Structure of the Constitution - 1 - UPSC MCQ

The Basic Structure Doctrine was propounded by Justice Hans Raj Khanna in the Kesavananda Bharti Case (1973). The doctrine states that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament. It is meant to preserve the soul idea and philosophy of the original constitution.

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) was a landmark case in defining the concept of the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court held that the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment." This became the basis in Indian law for the judiciary to strike down any amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Kesavananda Bharati Case Judgement listed some basic structures of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, unity and sovereignty of India, the democratic and republican form of government, federal character of the Constitution, secular character of the Constitution, separation of power, and individual freedom. The unicameral system of government is not a basic structure feature.

In the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court reversed its earlier stance that Fundamental Rights can be amended. It stated that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required.

In the Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case (1975), the Supreme Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of Article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975, on the grounds that it was beyond the Parliament's amending power as it destroyed the Constitution's basic features.

In the Minerva Mills Case (1980), the Supreme Court added two features to the list of basic structure features. These were judicial review and balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP. The Court ruled that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution.

In the Waman Rao Case (1981), the Supreme Court drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 - the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement. 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 that date.

In the Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992) case, the Supreme Court examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions. In this case, 'Rule of Law' was added to the list of basic features of the constitution.

In the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court tried to curb the blatant misuse of Article 356 (regarding the imposition of President's Rule on states). The Court held that policies of a state government directed against an element of the basic structure of the Constitution would be a valid ground for the exercise of the central power under Article 356.

The primary purpose of the Basic Structure Doctrine is to preserve the soul idea and philosophy of the original constitution. It ensures that certain basic features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament.

The Basic Structure Doctrine applies only to constitutional amendments, mainly those amendments that can destroy or change basic philosophical ideas of the original constitution. Any law that violates the Basic Structure Doctrine can be declared null by the Supreme Court.

The Basic Structure of the Constitution is not defined anywhere in the constitution, but it reflects through some of its constituents (as many times defined and narrated by the judiciary). These include the republic nature of India, sovereignty, rule of law, republic nature of Indian polity, liberty, judicial review, secularism, separation of power, etc. The presidential system of government is not a constituent of the Basic Structure.

In the Shankari Prasad Case (1951), the Supreme Court contended that the Parliament's power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well.

In the Sajjan Singh case (1965), the Supreme Court held that the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. However, two dissenting judges in this case remarked whether the fundamental rights of citizens could become a plaything of the majority party in Parliament.

The Golaknath case (1967) was significant in the context of the Basic Structure Doctrine, as it reversed the earlier stance that Fundamental Rights can be amended. The Supreme Court stated that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required.