This article has been written by Ms. Shreya Bhattacharya, a 2^nd year BBA LL. B student at Adamas University, Kolkata.

Introduction

The Parliament and State Legislatures are given the authority to enact laws within their respective regions by the Indian Constitution. Only Parliament, not the state legislative bodies, has the authority to modify the Constitution. This authority of the Parliament is not unqualified, nevertheless. Any statute that the Supreme Court deems to be unconstitutional may be declared void by the court. Any amendment that seeks to alter the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution is invalid, according to the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Doctrine of Basic Structure

The Indian Constitution makes no reference to the phrase “Basic Structure.” Over time and through several instances, the notion that the Parliament cannot introduce laws that would modify the fundamental framework of the constitution eventually emerged. The goal is to safeguard peoples’ rights and liberties while preserving the distinctive features of Indian democracy. The Indian Constitution’s Basic Structure theory aids in defending and preserving the document’s original intent.

Article 368 is contained in Part XX of the Indian Constitution. It allows for three distinct types of amendments: amendments passed by a simple majority, amendments passed by a special majority, and amendments passed by a special majority plus ratification by the States. Based on the changing nature of society, the Constitution needs to be changed frequently. The constitution’s stagnation is a major roadblock to the nation’s progress. Since time is not static; it is always changing, just as the political, economic, and social situations of the people do, a provision for modifying the Constitution has been included to address any issues “We the People” may encounter in the future while the Constitution operates.

The fundamental structure has not been defined in an all-inclusive or exclusive way by the judiciary or by Parliament. Using a case-by-case method, the judiciary has articulated the theory of basic structure.

Before 73 years, the people who drafted the Constitution were confident in India’s integrity and honour, but in modern times, the Parliament is trying everything it can to stay out of the court’s purview, which is responsible for upholding the Constitution. The goal of this idea, as it was described in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Another (1973), is to address a legal problem that arises in written constitutions because of an interaction between the provisions that safeguard fundamental rights and those that grant Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.

The Minerva Mills decision (1980) by the judiciary provided an ambiguous definition of the fundamental structure by holding that Parliament has the power to change the Constitution, which was carefully crafted by the founding fathers, whenever social demands so require. But it is important to keep in mind that the Constitution is a cultural artefact, and doubts about its integrity and identity should not be raised.

Important Features of the Basic Structure

Over the years, the judiciary has broadened the definition of what the fundamental framework includes through several cases. Here are a few of these fundamental characteristics:

• Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala– the following elements were seen as constituting “basic structure”:

1. According to Chief Justice Sikri, the fundamental elements of the Constitution are its supremacy, republican and democratic systems of governance, secular character, division of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and federal nature.
2. Shelat, J., and Grover, J. added two more fundamental principles to this list: the direction to establish a welfare state found in the Directive Principles of State Policy, as well as the nation’s unity and integrity.
3. The fundamental characteristics Hegde, J., and Mukherjee, J., separately and more succinctly listed include the sovereignty of India, the democratic nature of the polity, the nation’s unity, the core components of the individual freedoms secured to its citizens, and the mandate to create a welfare state.
4. According to Jaganmohan Reddy, J., the Constitution’s Preamble, and the constitutional clauses that they were translated into, such as “sovereign democratic republic,” “parliamentary democracy,” and “three organs of the state,” had elements of the fundamental features.

• In the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Justice K.K. Thomas argued that the availability of judicial review is a key factor. In addition, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud listed four essential principles that he thought were immutable. These consist of:

1. The principles of a sovereign democratic republic
2. universal access to opportunity and status
3. secularism, and freedom of conscience and religion, 
4. the law is supreme (Justice Mudholkar impliedly held it to be a component of the fundamental structure in the Golak Nath case from 1967.)

• According to the majority’s concurring opinion in the Minerva Mills decision, “limiting the amending authority” is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.
• In accordance with the ruling in the Central Coal Fields case from 1980, efficient access to justice is a crucial part of the fundamental framework.
• The Court alluded at democracy and a fair process of electoral as an element of the basic framework in Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1992).
• Furthermore, in S. R. Bomani v. Union of India (1994), democracy, federalism, and secularism were identified as vital components of the basic structure.
• The Court recognized the notion of equality as a fundamental aspect of the basic structure in the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006).

What is the scope of amending the Indian Constitution’s Basic Structure?

For many years, Indian legal experts have debated whether there are any express or implied limitations on Parliament’s authority to amend fundamental rights beyond the need to adhere to the established procedure. This problem first arose in the 1951 Shankari Prasad case, in which the First Amendment’s constitutionality was challenged. This revision resulted in significant changes to fundamental rights. According to the justification for the challenge, the in-question amendment is unconstitutional since it violates fundamental rights and be tested under Article 13(2). The Supreme Court issued a majority decision supporting the validity of the amendment, ruling that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments because the word “law” used throughout refers only to common law and not the constituent law. Remembering that the Provisional Parliament, which adopted the first amendment, was created from the Constituent Assembly with the same membership, can be useful.

This topic was raised in the second case, Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab (1963). The Seventeenth Amendment of 1964 was challenged in this case for the same reasons. This time, the Court ruled by a majority of 3 to 2 that Article 368’s modifying power is a broad one that could remove the fundamental rights secured by Part III and cannot be governed by Article 13. This topic was brought up once more in the case of Golak Nath case, in which the Supreme Court deviated from precedent. By a margin of six to five, it was determined that Constitutional Law was included in the definition of “law” in Article 13(2), limiting and restraining the modifying power conferred by Article 368. It forbade Parliament from altering any of the provisions in Part III in a way that would take away or reduce the rights that are secured therein. 

The fundamental law is the Constitution. It is challenging to distinguish which part is more fundamental than the other because there is no objective standard to do so. Therefore, since there are no objective standards to distinguish between the components of this so-called basic structure, it is up to the individual to decide what goes into it. Even if it were possible to discriminate between non-essential and essential features, it is not possible to assert that essential features are inherently timeless and unalterable.

Conclusion

We can now state that there is no absolute law governing a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution. Judges have varying opinions about basic structure theory. However, at one point they both agree that Parliament does not have the authority to change the “fundamental structure” or framework of the constitution. The fundamental components of the Constitution’s basic structure can be determined without difficulty if the historical context, the preamble, the complete scheme of the constitution, and the pertinent articles therein, including article 368, are kept in mind. As a result of the federal and democratic nature of the constitution, the separation of powers, and the secular nature of our state, these phrases apply to the theory of the basic structure more than they do to the doctrine of negligence or natural justice. Therefore, judicial interpretation is necessary to defend the welfare state, fundamental rights, the unity and integrity of the country, the sovereign democratic republic, and freedom of opinion, speech, belief, and religion. Even the judges and the legislature, we might say, are not above the constitution.

References:

1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/thyg.htm
2. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/landmark-cases-relating-basic-structure-constitution/#:~:text=This%20was%20a%20landmark%20case,even%20by%20a%20constitutional%20amendment.%E2%80%9D
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/basic-structure-of-indian-constitution/
4. https://constitutionnet.org/vl/item/basic-structure-indian-constitution

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening