Evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine

The evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine in India represents one of the most remarkable developments in constitutional jurisprudence, highlighting the dynamic interaction between the legislature and the judiciary. Emerging from a long constitutional tussle over the limits of Parliament’s amending power, this doctrine gradually evolved through a series of Supreme Court judgements delivered between 1951 and 1980, culminating in the recognition that while Parliament possesses vast powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its essential features or basic structure.

Early Phase: Parliamentary Supremacy (1951–1965)

The formative years of independent India were characterised by a strong emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty and a belief that the elected legislature should have extensive powers to pursue socio-economic reforms. The judiciary, during this period, generally upheld this approach.

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

This case marked the first constitutional confrontation on Parliament’s amending power. The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment Act, 1951, which introduced the Ninth Schedule and Article 31B to protect land reform laws from judicial review. The Court ruled that the term “law” under Article 13(2) did not include constitutional amendments, thereby granting Parliament unrestricted power to amend even the Fundamental Rights. This judgement firmly placed the amending power within the scope of Article 368, endorsing parliamentary supremacy.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

The Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964, which placed additional agrarian reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged on the same grounds. The Court, by majority, reaffirmed Shankari Prasad and upheld Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, a notable shift occurred in the dissenting opinions of Justices Mudholkar and Hidayatullah, who questioned whether there were certain inherent features of the Constitution that could not be altered. This was the first judicial hint towards the concept of basic structure.

The Turning Point: Golak Nath and Judicial Assertion (1967)

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) constituted a watershed moment. In a narrow 6–5 majority, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier rulings and held that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights. The Court interpreted the word “law” in Article 13(2) to include constitutional amendments and declared that any amendment violating Fundamental Rights would be void. It also asserted that Fundamental Rights were placed beyond the reach of Parliament and could only be changed by a Constituent Assembly.
This decision curtailed Parliament’s amending power and effectively made Fundamental Rights immutable, triggering strong legislative response and setting the stage for a constitutional conflict between the two organs of the state.

Parliamentary Counteraction: Expanding Amending Power (1971–1972)

The Parliament reacted swiftly to the Golak Nath verdict by passing a series of constitutional amendments aimed at restoring its lost authority:

• 24th Amendment (1971): Affirmed Parliament’s power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and made presidential assent to such amendments compulsory.
• 25th Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C, giving precedence to certain Directive Principles (Articles 39(b) and 39(c)) over Fundamental Rights, thereby restricting judicial review.
• 26th Amendment (1971): Abolished the Privy Purse of former rulers.
• 29th Amendment (1972): Placed two Kerala land reform laws into the Ninth Schedule to shield them from judicial scrutiny.

These amendments collectively asserted legislative supremacy and revived Parliament’s capacity to pursue social reforms despite judicial opposition.

The Landmark Decision: Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

The constitutional balance between Parliament and the judiciary was finally settled in the historic Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case. The case was triggered by a challenge to the Kerala Land Reforms Act (1963) and subsequent constitutional amendments (24th, 25th, and 29th). A thirteen-judge bench, the largest in India’s history, examined whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute.
In a 7–6 majority verdict, the Court ruled that:

• Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is wide but not unlimited.
• It cannot alter, destroy, or emasculate the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
• The 24th Amendment was valid, but the 25th Amendment was valid only in part, as it could not remove judicial review entirely.

The judges identified certain principles forming the basic structure, including:

• Supremacy of the Constitution,
• Rule of law and judicial review,
• Federalism,
• Democracy and republican government,
• Separation of powers,
• Secularism, and
• The balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Justice H.R. Khanna’s pivotal opinion struck a balance between the earlier extremes of judicial activism and parliamentary supremacy, ensuring that while Parliament retained its power to amend, it could not dismantle the constitutional foundation.

Application and Reaffirmation (1975–1980)

The Basic Structure Doctrine was immediately tested and reaffirmed in subsequent cases that shaped India’s constitutional identity.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)This case challenged the 39th Amendment (1975), which placed the elections of the Prime Minister, President, Vice-President, and Speaker beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, holding that free and fair elections and rule of law form part of the basic structure. The judgement reinforced that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial scrutiny.
The Forty-Second Amendment (1976)In an attempt to override judicial authority, the government enacted the Forty-Second Amendment, often termed the “Mini-Constitution.” It expanded Parliament’s powers by:

• Declaring its amending power as limitless,
• Giving Directive Principles precedence over Fundamental Rights, and
• Preventing courts from questioning any constitutional amendment.

This amendment represented the height of legislative assertiveness during the Emergency.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)The judiciary reasserted itself in this landmark judgement. The Supreme Court struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the Forty-Second Amendment, ruling that judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles constitute the basic structure. The Court famously observed that Parliament could not convert its limited power to amend into an unlimited one, reaffirming the supremacy of the Constitution.
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) further clarified that all amendments enacted before 24 April 1973 were valid, but those passed thereafter could be examined under the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Subsequent Expansion and Consolidation

Following Minerva Mills, the doctrine became an enduring part of Indian constitutional law. Various Supreme Court rulings expanded its scope:

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Declared secularism, democracy, and federalism as essential features.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): Reaffirmed judicial review as a basic feature.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): Held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 1973 are open to review if they violate the basic structure.

Significance and Impact

The evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine marks a unique constitutional journey where the judiciary safeguarded the supremacy of the Constitution against legislative overreach. It:

• Prevented the establishment of parliamentary dictatorship.
• Preserved the democratic and secular character of the Republic.
• Ensured that no constitutional amendment can destroy the foundational ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Critics argue that the doctrine lacks explicit constitutional backing and enhances judicial supremacy. However, its role in preserving constitutionalism and preventing authoritarian excesses remains indisputable.