Basic Structure of the Constitution – UPSC Notes – Indian Polity
The Beginning of the Basic Structure
In this article, we will comprehensively discuss about Basic Structure of the Constitution, and what it entails!
Shortly after the Constitution came into effect, there was a question about whether the Parliament could change Fundamental Rights using Article 368. This matter was discussed in the Supreme Court in the Shankari Prasad case (1951). During this case, the validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), which limited property rights, was challenged. The Supreme Court decided that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, and this includes making changes to Fundamental Rights. According to the court, the term ‘law‘ in Article 13 only refers to regular laws and not constitutional amendment acts. Therefore, Parliament can restrict or remove any Fundamental Right by passing a constitutional amendment act, and such a law would not be considered invalid under Article 13.
However, in the Golak Nath case (1967), the Supreme Court changed its earlier decision. In this case, the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), which added certain state acts to the Ninth Schedule, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights have a ‘transcendental and immutable‘ position, meaning they cannot be changed. Consequently, Parliament cannot limit or take away any of these rights. A constitutional amendment act is also considered a law under Article 13, so it would be invalid if it violates any Fundamental Rights.
The Parliament’s Response to Supreme Court decisions
After the Supreme Court’s decision in the Golak Nath case (1967), the Parliament took action by passing the 24th Amendment Act (1971). This amendment changed Articles 13 and 368 of the Constitution. It stated that Parliament has the authority to limit or remove any Fundamental Rights under Article 368, and such an action would not be considered a law according to the definition in Article 13.
However, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court reversed its decision from the Golak Nath case (1967). It upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and affirmed that Parliament has the power to limit or remove any Fundamental Rights under Article 368. At the same time, the court introduced a new concept called the ‘basic structure‘ (or ‘basic features‘) of the Constitution. It ruled that Parliament, through its constituent power under Article 368, cannot change the ‘basic structure‘ of the Constitution. This implies that Parliament cannot limit or remove a Fundamental Right that is considered part of the ‘basic structure‘ of the Constitution.
Reinforcement of Basic Structure in the Constitution
The idea of the basic structure of the constitution was confirmed and put into action by the Supreme Court in the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975). In this situation, the Supreme Court rejected a part of the 39th Amendment Act (1975), which excluded the jurisdiction of all courts in election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha. The court stated that this provision went beyond Parliament’s power to amend as it affected the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
Once again, the Parliament responded to this newly established legal principle of the ‘basic structure‘ by passing the 42nd Amendment Act (1976). This amendment altered Article 368 and declared that there are no restrictions on the constituent power of Parliament. It asserted that no amendment can be challenged in any court on any grounds, including the violation of any Fundamental Rights.
The Minerva Mills Case and the Basic Structure
However, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court struck down a provision because it excluded judicial review, which is a crucial aspect of the Constitution. Using the concept of the ‘basic structure‘ concerning Article 368, the court stated:
“Since the Constitution had given limited power to amend to Parliament, it cannot, through this limited power, expand into an absolute power. A limited amending power is one of the fundamental features of the Constitution. Therefore, the restrictions on that power cannot be removed. In simple terms, Parliament cannot, under Article 368, increase its amending power to the extent of gaining the right to repeal or abolish the Constitution or undermine its fundamental features. The receiver of a limited power cannot, by using that power, turn it into an unlimited one.”
Furthermore, in the Waman Rao case (1981), the Supreme Court stuck to the ‘basic structure‘ doctrine and clarified that it would be applicable to constitutional amendments made after April 24, 1973 (the date of the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case).
Elements of the Basic Structure
Currently, Parliament has the authority under Article 368 to modify any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, as long as it doesn’t impact the ‘basic structure‘ of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has not clearly defined what exactly makes up the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Based on various judgments, the following have been identified as the ‘basic features‘ or components of the ‘basic structure‘:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Sovereign, democratic, and republican nature of the Indian polity
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Unity and integrity of the nation
- Welfare state (socio-economic justice)
- Judicial review
- Freedom and dignity of the individual
- Parliamentary system
- Rule of law
- Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
- Principle of equality
- Free and fair elections
- Independence of Judiciary
- Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
- Effective access to justice
- Principles (or essence) underlying fundamental rights
- Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, and 142
- Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
Evolution of the Basic Structure of the Constitution
Here’s a list of significant cases and the essential elements of the basic structure as declared by the Supreme Court:
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
- Republic and democratic form of government
- Secular character of the constitution
- Federal character of the constitution
- Sovereignty and unity of India
- Freedom and dignity of the individual
- Mandate to build a welfare state
- Parliamentary System
- Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975)
- India as a sovereign democratic republic
- Equality of status and opportunity of an individual
- Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion
- Government of laws and not of men (Rule of Law)
- Judicial review
- Free and fair elections implied in democracy
- Minerva Mills case (1980)
- Limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution
- Judicial review
- Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles
- Central Coal Fields Ltd. Case (1980)
- Effective access to justice
- Bhim Singhji Case (1981)
- Welfare State (Socio-economic justice)
- S.P. Sampath Kumar Case (1987)
- Rule of law
- Judicial review
- P. Sambamurthy Case (1987)
- Rule of law
- Judicial review
- Delhi Judicial Service Association Case (1991)
- Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141, and 142
- Indra Sawhney Case (1992)
- Rule of law
- Independence of judiciary
- Kumar Padma Prasad Case (1992)
- Principle of equality
- Unity and integrity of India
- Kihoto Hollohon Case (1993)
- Free and fair elections
- Sovereign, democratic, republican structure
- Raghunath Rao Case (1993)
- Principle of equality
- Unity and integrity of India
- S.R. Bommai Case (1994)
- Federalism
- Secularism
- Democracy
- Unity and integrity of the nation
- Social justice
- Judicial review
- L. Chandra Kumar Case (1997)
- Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
- Indra Sawhney II Case (2000)
- Principle of equality
- All India Judge’s Association Case (2002)
- Independent judicial system
- Kuldip Nayar Case (2006)
- Democracy
- Free and fair elections
- M. Nagaraj Case (2006)
- Principle of equality
- I.R. Coelho Case (2007)
- Rule of law
- Separation of powers
- Principles (or essence) underlying fundamental rights
- Judicial review
- Principle of equality
- Ram Jethmalani Case (2011)
- Powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32
- Namit Sharma Case (2013)
- Freedom and dignity of the individual
- Madras Bar Association Case (2014)
- Judicial review
- Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
FAQs on Basic Structure of the Constitution
1. Q: What elements did the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) emphasize as part of the basic structure of the Constitution?
A: The Kesavananda Bharati case highlighted the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, republic and democratic form of government, secular character, federal character, sovereignty and unity of India, freedom and dignity of the individual, mandate to build a welfare state, and the parliamentary system.
2. Q: What key principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975)?
A: The Indira Nehru Gandhi case emphasized India as a sovereign democratic republic, equality of status and opportunity for individuals, secularism, freedom of conscience and religion, government of laws (Rule of Law), judicial review, and the implication of free and fair elections in democracy.
3. Q: What limitations on Parliament’s power were outlined in the Minerva Mills case (1980)?
A: The Minerva Mills case highlighted the limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution, stressed judicial review, and emphasized the harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.
4. Q: What aspect of the basic structure did the Central Coal Fields Ltd. Case (1980) address?
A: The Central Coal Fields Ltd. Case focused on the effective access to justice as an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
5. Q: In the Kihoto Hollohon Case (1993), what constitutional principles were upheld by the Supreme Court?
A: The Kihoto Hollohon Case emphasized the importance of free and fair elections and reiterated the sovereign, democratic, and republican structure of India.
For Complete Polity Click Here.
Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE
Follow our Instagram ID HERE
