Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitution of a country is the basic norm (Grundnorm, as Hans Kelsen purported) which
includes fundamental principles which lay down the foundation of a society. Though the
phrase 'basic structure' is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, this was recognised in
the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The 13-judge Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court in this case said that every provision of the Constitution can be amended
provided the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution remains the same. The judges
in this case mentioned some aspects of the Constitution which could constitute the 'basic
features'. They are:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Republican and Democratic form of Government
3. Secular character of the Constitution
4. Separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary
5. Federal character of the Constitution.
Article 368 of the Constitution of India grants power to Parliament to amend the
Constitution. Various Constitutional Amendments made under the said provision were partly
struck down by the Courts on the ground that the basic structure was damaged. Some of them
are enlisted as under:
The apex court said, "Our Constitution is founded on a nice balance of power among the
three wings of the State, namely, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. It is the
function of the Judges, nay their duty, to pronounce upon the validity of laws. If courts are
totally deprived of that power the fundamental rights conferred upon the people (will become
a mere adornment because rights without remedies are as writ in water. A controlled
Constitution will then become uncontrolled. Clause (4) of Article 368 totally deprives the
citizens it one of the most valuable modes of redress which is guaranteed by Article 32.
The conferment of the right to destroy the identity of the Constitution coupled with the
provision that no court or law shall pronounce upon the validity of such destruction seems to
us a transparent case of transgression of the limitations on the amending power."
This case was regarding Section 46 of the 42nd Constitution (Amendment Act) which
inserted Articles 323 A and 323 B in the Constitution of India. The question arose in the
instant case is whether the Tribunals constituted under Articles 323 A and 323 B possess
the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provision. The court found
that the articles excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court under Article
226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The court opined, the jurisdiction of the High Courts and
Supreme Court is part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution. Since the
Amendment damaged the basic structure, the same was held unconstitutional and void. The
apex court said, "While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may
perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32
of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the
Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory
provisions and rules."
"we hold that Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227
and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional", observed the Court.
The High Court in this case declared the Amendment as ultra vires the Constitution of India
for not taking recourse to Article 368(2) of the Constitution providing for ratification by the
majority of the State Legislatures. The appeal in the said case is still pending before the
Supreme Court.
Thus, the bench in a majority of 4:1 rejected the NJAC Act as well as the 99 th Constitutional
Amendment as "unconstitutional and void". The court further held that the collegium system
that existed before the NJAC would again become operative. Recently, the Supreme Court
Justice Kurian Joseph said that he regretted the decision in the NJAC in which he was a part
of the Constitution Bench wherein the majority struck down the creation of NJAC to replace
the collegium system for appointment of judges.
In M. Nagraj v. Union of India where a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court to
quash the 77th Constitution Amendment Act 1995, 81st Constitution Amendment Act 2000,
82nd Constitution Amendment Act 2000 and 85th Constitution Amendment Act 2001
amendment in Article 16(4A) (4B) providing reservation in promotion with consequential
seniority as being unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure as well as 77th, 81st
and 82nd Amendment Acts of the Constitution The apex court in this case unanimously
upheld the validity of these provisions since it did not destroy the equality code of the
Constitution. The apex court said, "However, in this case, as stated, the main issue concerns
the "extent of reservation".
In this regard the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the
compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall
administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the
impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for
SC/ST in matter of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make
such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class
and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to
compliance of Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as
stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to
excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend
the reservation indefinitely.
In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar, SC upheld the 93rd Constitution Amendment
Act, which inserted Article 15(5) in the Constitution to provide for OBC reservation in
educational institutions. At present, a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the 103rd
Constitution Amendment which inserted Article 15(6) to provide for economic reservation is
pending in the Supreme Court.