THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS HISTORICAL

CASES WHERE IT HAS BEEN APPLIED AND THE RECENT BACKDROPS

Relevance:

1. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar criticised the Supreme Court for using the Basic
Structure Doctrine to strike down constitutional amendments by Parliament, such as
the NJAC Act. Dated 12 Jan 2023
2. S.C. released a video on the 50th-anniversary of the Keshavanatha Bharathi case in 10
languages including the Malayalam

constitution is the GRUNDNORM (the paramount law of the land) law. Throughout history,
there was always a question before the judiciary to what extent the Constitution can be
amended.

On 24th April 1973, the ever-largest bench of the Supreme Court introduced a new idea to the
Constitution on What extent the Constitution can be amended. In the Keshavananda Bharati
case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the
Constitution, it cannot alter its "basic structure." The court did not explicitly define what
constitutes the basic structure, but it includes features such as federalism, secularism,
democracy, and the rule of law

Chief Justice Sikri observed- “The expression “amendment of this Constitution” does not
enable Parliament to abrogate or take away fundamental rights or to completely change the
fundamental features of the Constitution so as to destroy its identity. Within these limits,
Parliament can amend every article”

Examples of its application

SR Bommai (1994),

when the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of BJP governments by the President following
the demolition of the Babri Masjid, invoking a threat to secularism by these governments.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):

In this case, the Court held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution does not
extend to damaging or destroying its basic structure. This decision reinforced the principles
laid down in Kesavananda Bharati.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980):

The Court, in this case, struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which
sought to give Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution. The judgment
reiterated the concept of basic structure.

Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981):

The Court held that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited
and that the basic structure cannot be altered. It emphasized the importance of judicial review
in preserving the basic structure.

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):

The Court, in this case, emphasized the federal structure as a part of the basic structure and
held that the President's power to dissolve a state government is subject to judicial review if it
violates the basic structure.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997):

This case dealt with the constitutional validity of the Tribunals' provisions. The Court held
that the independence of the judiciary is part of the basic structure, and therefore, the power
of judicial review cannot be taken away.

The central theme of the entire judgement was that the Tribunals cannot and will not be a
substitute for the power of judicial review that the Constitution bestows upon the High
Courts. The Tribunals will act as supplementary institutions to assist the High Court while
they perform their function. Moreover, the Tribunals will remain under the supervision of the
High Courts and can in no way be considered as institutions parallel to the High Courts.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007):

In this case, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine of basic structure and held that laws made
under Article 31B, which grants immunity to certain laws from judicial review by keeping it
in 9th schedule, are subject to the basic structure doctrine.

The National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) was declared unconstitutional

by the Supreme Court of India on October 16, 2015 1. The Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court upheld the collegium system and struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017):

While not striking down a law, this case is significant as it recognized the right to privacy as
a fundamental right, which is considered an integral part of the basic structure.

RELEVANT ISSUES IN WHICH VIOLATION OF THE BASIC

STRUCTURE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN RAISED