Skip to main content

Doctrine of Basic Structure

 Doctrine of Basic Structure

By: Anjali Tiwari

The Indian Constitution grants the Parliament and State Legislatures the power to enact legislation within their respective domains. Only Parliament, not state legislative assemblies, has the right to modify the Constitution. The Parliament's power, however, is not absolute. The Supreme Court has the authority to declare any statute unconstitutional and null and void. Any amendment that aims to affect the constitution's core structure is invalid, according to the Basic Structure Doctrine. The goal is to defend people's rights and liberties while preserving the nature of Indian democracy. This idea aids in the protection and preservation of the constitution's spirit.

Case law regarding Doctrine of Basic Structure:

Case of Shankari Prasad (1951)

In this decision, the Supreme Court argued that Article 368 of the Constitution gave Parliament the ability to change the Fundamental Rights granted in Part III as well.

The case of Sajjan Singh (1965)

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that Parliament has the power to change any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.

It's worth noting that in this case, two dissenting judges questioned if citizens' fundamental rights may become a toy for the governing party in Parliament.

The case of Golaknath (1967)

The court altered its previous position that the Fundamental Rights can be amended in this case. It said that the Parliamentary restriction indicated in Article 13 does not apply to Fundamental Rights, and that a new Constituent Assembly would be required to modify the Fundamental Rights. Article 368 also states that while it establishes the framework for amending the Constitution, it does not grant Parliament the ability to do so. Fundamental Rights were given a "transcendental standing" in this decision. The majority opinion referred to the concept of implied constraints on Parliament's power to modify the Constitution. Citizens' fundamental freedoms, according to this viewpoint, have a permanent place in the Constitution. The people had reserved these rights for themselves when they created the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)

The Kesavananda Bharati case was the catalyst for bringing this doctrine to light. It was decided that the Constitution's "fundamental structure could not be repealed even by a constitutional amendment." The following are some basic constitutional frameworks identified in the ruling:

  1. Supremacy of the Constitution

  2. Unity and sovereignty of India

  3. Democratic and republican form of government

  4. Federal character of the Constitution

  5. Secular character of the Constitution

  6. Separation of power

  7. Individual freedom

Many more features have been added to this list of basic structural features over time. Here are a few examples: like rule of law, judicial w, free and fair election, rule of equality etc. This was a watershed moment in the development of the basic structure doctrine. Although no component of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was outside Parliament's amending power, the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's "fundamental structure could not be repealed even by a constitutional amendment."According to the ruling, the parliament can only alter the constitution, not rewrite it. The ability to improve is not the same as the ability to destroy. This is the legal basis in India for the judiciary to overturn any amendment passed by Parliament that is incompatible with the Constitution's core framework. 

Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975)

The Supreme Court used the basic structure theory to strike down Clause(4) of Article 329-A, which was added by the 39th Amendment in 1975, on the grounds that it exceeded Parliament's amending power because it damaged the Constitution's core elements. During the Emergency Period, Parliament passed the 39th Amendment Act. This Act exempted the election of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha from judicial review. The administration did this to prevent Indira Gandhi from being prosecuted by the Allahabad High Court for corrupt electoral procedures.

References

1. Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain, 1975, AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333)

2. Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762

3. Kesavananda Bharati case, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected
Post a Comment
Read more

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre
Post a Comment
Read more

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct
Post a Comment
Read more