Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution

1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?

The Constitution does not contain an express article listing the "basic structure." The doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court while interpreting Article 368. Its central proposition is that the power to amend is not a power to destroy the Constitution's essential identity.

Whether a constitutional feature forms part of the basic structure depends on its place in the constitutional scheme, its object and purpose, and the effect that its destruction would have on the Constitution as the fundamental instrument of governance.

2. Features Recognised as Part of the Basic Structure

The Supreme Court has not treated the doctrine as an exhaustive closed list. Different judgments have identified or reaffirmed different features. Important examples include:

3. Development of the Doctrine through Supreme Court Cases

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

The Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights under the constitutional amending power and distinguished a constitutional amendment from ordinary "law" for Article 13 purposes.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

The Court again upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. Important separate opinions, however, raised concerns about whether there should be implied limits on the amending power.

I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)

By majority, the Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights in a manner that abridged or took them away. The judgment treated Article 368 principally as prescribing the procedure for amendment. Parliament subsequently enacted the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, expressly affirming its constituent power under Article 368.

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

A thirteen-Judge Bench reconsidered the scope of Article 368. The majority held that Parliament has wide power to amend every provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but the amending power cannot be exercised so as to alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

Chief Justice S.M. Sikri identified features including supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic government, secularism, separation of powers and federalism, while also emphasising the dignity and freedom of the individual. Other judges formulated the limitation in different terms.

The decision therefore rejected both extremes: Parliament is not powerless to amend Fundamental Rights, but its Article 368 power is not unlimited.

5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

The Supreme Court applied the Basic Structure Doctrine to invalidate the constitutional attempt to place disputes concerning the election of specified high constitutional office-holders beyond ordinary judicial adjudication. The case reinforced the importance of free and fair elections, equality, rule of law and judicial review within the constitutional structure.

The relevant provision was introduced through the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975. Article 329A was later omitted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.

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

The Supreme Court invalidated parts of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 that attempted to exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments and to enlarge Parliament's amending power beyond constitutional limits.

The Court reaffirmed that limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure. It also treated the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy as an essential feature of the Constitution.

7. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)

Waman Rao addressed laws placed in the Ninth Schedule. The Court used 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, as a constitutional dividing line. Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after that date became subject to scrutiny under the Basic Structure Doctrine.

8. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

The landmark reservation judgment upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in central services subject to important constitutional limitations. Equality is a core constitutional value, but this case is primarily studied under Articles 14 and 16 rather than as the principal source of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

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

S.R. Bommai is a leading decision on Article 356 and federalism. The Supreme Court confirmed that presidential proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review and emphasised that secularism and federalism are basic features of the Constitution.

10. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

A nine-Judge Bench held that constitutional protection under Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule does not create complete immunity from Basic Structure review. Laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be examined to determine whether their effect damages rights or principles forming part of the basic structure.

11. Article 368 - Amendment Procedure

A constitutional amendment Bill may be introduced in either House of Parliament. It must be passed in each House by:

• a majority of the total membership of that House; and
• a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Amendments affecting specified federal provisions also require ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. Once duly passed and, where required, ratified, the Bill is presented to the President, who shall give assent.

12. Quick Revision Points