Basic structure Doctrine
On 24 April, India celebrates the anniversary of Kesavananda Bharati judgment, enunciating the doctrine of basic structure.
About Basic structure Doctrine
The basic structure doctrine recognizes that even a government that possesses full powers has certain 'basic structures' which it cannot completely abrogate or set aside even if a particular power is transferred to another independent agency or department.
For instance, if the constituent assembly of a new sovereign state were to pass a law which empowered some officials to replace others with the stroke of a pen, the basic structure doctrine would ensure that no act of abrogation would invalidate the transfer even if the new position could not be regarded as having been established in accordance with the will of the people as expressed through their freely expressed elected representatives.
Objectives of Basic structure Doctrine
The main purpose of the doctrine is to prevent the deprivation of liberty for debtors without providing adequate remedy and adequate grounds for doing so.
The basic structure doctrine protects fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution that cannot be denied by the state on the ground that they are gained by acquisition or maintenance of a certain economic status.
The doctrine has been successfully challenged by governments in several instances on the ground that it amounts to a restrictive view of property rights and affords too much power to the state.
Evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The concept of the basic structure of the constitution evolved over time. In this section, we shall discuss this evolution with the help of some landmark judgement related to this doctrine.
- The First Constitution Amendment Act, 1951- It was challenged in the Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India case. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament, under Article 368, has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights.
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan- The Constitution has “basic features” was first theorized in 1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. He questioned whether the ambit of Article 368 included the power to alter a basic feature or rewrite a part of the Constitution.
- Golak Nath vs State of Punjab case- The Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the constitution as the fundamental rights are transcendental and immutable.
- The Parliament passed the 24th Constitution Amendment Act. The act gave the absolute power to the parliament to make any changes in the constitution including the fundamental rights.
- The 25th Amendment to the Indian Constitution curtailed the right to property, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts
- In Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act by reviewing its decision in Golaknath case. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament has power to amend any provision of the constitution, but doing so, the basic structure of the constitution is to be maintained.
- Waaman Rao case- The SC adhered to the doctrine and clarified that the doctrine would apply to constitutional amendments after April 24th
