The basic structure doctrine suggests that certain parts of the Indian Constitution form the core and have intrinsic value. Hence, they cannot be altered or removed from the Indian Constitution. Such parts form the basis and reflect the principles of the makers of the Constitution. Not only that, they also throw light on the basic tenets of constitutionalism in India, hence, referred to as the basic structure. This doctrine has been promulgated through a series of judgments, including the renowned case of Kesavananda Bharati. Thus, it does not have a limited scope. The application of the doctrine has evolved only through the judicial interpretation of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, through their writ jurisdiction, intervene and interpret the Indian Constitution to impart its true meaning.
The case of Shankari Prasad(1951) is among the initial cases of the Hon’ble Supreme Court evolving the basic structure doctrine in India. The Supreme Court opined that the Parliament had the power under Article 368 to modify any part of the Indian Constitution by way of constitutional amendment, including the fundamental rights. Thus, the position of law after this judgment was that the State had the power to take away/restrict the fundamental rights of people through a constitutional amendment and such an amendment would not be even nullified by Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. In 1965, in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the majority view held that fundamental rights could also be amended by the Parliament, both prospectively and retrospectively by virtue of its power under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution. In the landmark I.C. Golaknath (1967) judgment, the majority view held that the fundamental rights could not be amended in any manner.
Finally in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) the Court opined that the wide powers of the Parliament under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution were subjected to the basic structure doctrine. Any component forming part of the basic structure was not open to amendment by the legislature. The case saw the largest Constitutional Bench of 13 judges to decide upon the matter. Pursuant to 68 days of the hearing, the verdict of the case was passed with a ratio of 7:6.
The Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case (1975) involved allegations of election malpractice against Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections. The Supreme Court stated that having free and fair elections is a vital part of the basic structure. They explained that conducting elections fairly and without bias is important to support the democratic principles of the Constitution. The Court decided that the Parliament can make changes to the Constitution. But the Court also said that this power cannot be exercised in a way that will damage or destroy the basic structure. In another case, Minerva Mills vs Union Of India (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. The Supreme Court of India has declared the rule of law as a basic structure of the constitution in the case of the Union of India (1992), also known as the Mandal case. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself unlimited power. In the case of S.R. Bommai (1994), the apex court reinforced the principles of federalism and democratic governance. These principles were declared to be integral to the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
The Keshavananda Bharati Judgment laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine and is treated equivalent as to the North Star of the Indian Constitution. So it can be very well concluded that the basic structure of the Constitution has changed over time since it was first established in the 1970s, with more and more rights being incorporated into it with each passing year. Thus, the underlying basic structure that is visible today is the result of years of court supervision of fundamental rights and the associated constitutional framework.
