Understanding the basic structure of the Indian Constitution is not just a scholarly pursuit but an essential cornerstone for anyone seeking to comprehend the essence of India’s democratic fabric. In this blog, we embark on a journey to unravel the fundamental elements that constitute the backbone of the Indian Constitution, shedding light on its significance and relevance in contemporary times.
The Indian Constitution stands as a testament to the vision, struggles, and aspirations of a nation striving for freedom, justice, and equality. Crafted over years of deliberation and debate, it serves as the foundational document shaping the world’s largest democracy. Its basic structure embodies the essence of democratic governance, enshrining principles that safeguard the rights and aspirations of its diverse populace.
Background
Since the inception of the Indian Constitution, there have been ongoing debates regarding the extent of Parliament’s authority to amend crucial provisions of the Constitution. Initially, the Supreme Court granted Parliament unchecked power to amend the Constitution, as evidenced by rulings such as the Shankari Prasad case (1951) and the Sajjan Singh case (1965). In these cases, the court interpreted the term “law” in Article 13 to refer only to ordinary legislative enactments and not constitutional amendments made under Article 368, thereby affirming Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Article 13(2) states that the State cannot enact laws that curtail or infringe upon the rights granted under Part III (Fundamental Rights), and any such law would be deemed void. However, the Golaknath case (1967) marked a significant shift when the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament lacked the authority to amend Fundamental Rights, reserving this power exclusively for a Constituent Assembly. The Court determined that amendments made under Article 368 constitute “law” under Article 13, thus rendering void any amendment that diminishes or removes a Fundamental Right.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Golaknath case (1967), RC Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the government under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi enacted substantial amendments to the Constitution (the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Amendments). These amendments aimed to circumvent the limitations imposed by the Court’s rulings. However, all four amendments faced legal challenges in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case.
Kesavananda Bharti Case
In the Kesavananda Bharati case, a challenge was brought against two state land reform laws in Kerala that imposed restrictions on the management of religious property, invoking Article 26 which addresses the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference. The pivotal question at the heart of the case was whether Parliament possessed unrestricted authority to amend the Constitution, including the power to abolish fundamental rights entirely.
In a narrow 7-6 decision, the Constitutional Bench ruled that Parliament retained the authority to amend any part of the Constitution as long as it did not tamper with the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. However, the court did not explicitly define the term ‘basic structure’ but mentioned certain principles such as federalism, secularism, and democracy as constituting its essence.
The ‘basic structure’ doctrine has since been elucidated to encompass principles like the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the doctrine of separation of powers, the sovereign democratic republic, the parliamentary system of government, the principle of free and fair elections, and the concept of a welfare state. An instance of the application of the basic structure doctrine is observed in the SR Bommai case (1994), where the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of BJP-led governments by the President following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, citing a threat to secularism posed by these governments.
Arguments regarding the basic structure doctrine vary; critics view it as undemocratic as it allows unelected judges to strike down constitutional amendments, while proponents praise it as a safeguard against majoritarianism and authoritarianism.
The genesis of the basic structure theory traces back to the Sajjan Singh case (1965), where Justice Mudholkar referenced a 1963 decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Chief Justice Cornelius of Pakistan had ruled that the President of Pakistan could not alter the “fundamental features” of their Constitution.
Which features of the constitution constitute 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
- The 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
- 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.
Significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The Basic Structure Doctrine promotes the preservation of constitutional principles and the fundamental ideals envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. It upholds the supremacy of the Constitution, preventing its undermining by a temporary parliamentary majority. By ensuring a clear separation of powers, the doctrine strengthens democracy, particularly by maintaining the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative branches.
According to Granville Austin, the Basic Structure Doctrine achieves a balance between the roles of Parliament and the Supreme Court in safeguarding the intricate fabric of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, it serves to protect the fundamental rights of citizens from potential legislative overreach and authoritarianism.
Embracing the concept of the Constitution as a living document, the Basic Structure Doctrine acknowledges its dynamic nature, enabling it to evolve progressively over time. This characteristic allows for adaptability to changing societal needs and ensures the Constitution remains relevant and effective in addressing contemporary challenges.
In conclusion, the doctrine of the basic structure serves as a crucial safeguard against legislative overreach, particularly in light of historical lessons from the Emergence Era. By providing a shield against an all-powerful parliament prone to excessive use of Article 368, this doctrine ensures the preservation of the foundational principles and essential features of the Constitution.
However, there exists a contrasting perspective that argues for a more flexible approach to constitutional amendments. According to this viewpoint, amendments, even if they involve purportedly basic aspects of the Constitution, can be necessary for the survival and adaptation of the constitutional framework to changing societal needs and circumstances.
While these differing viewpoints reflect ongoing debates surrounding the application of the basic structure doctrine, it is clear that striking a balance between preserving constitutional integrity and allowing for necessary adaptations is essential. Ultimately, the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence must continue to navigate this delicate balance, ensuring that while protecting against legislative excesses, the Constitution remains dynamic and responsive to the evolving needs of the society it serves.
Also read about Fundamental Duties and Fundamental rights.