Skip to content
LL.B Mania
LL.B Mania

  • About
    • Core Team
    • Advisory Board
    • Editorial Board [BLOG]
    • Writing & Research Board
    • Public Relations
  • OpEd
  • BLOG
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Business Law
    • Case Analysis
    • Contract Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Company Law
    • Competition Law
    • Consumer Law
    • Civil Law
    • CLAT
    • Criminal Law
    • Cyber Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Evidence Law
    • Family Law
    • Health Law
    • Hindu Law
    • Human Rights Law
    • International Law
    • Intellectual Property Law
    • Insolvency & Bankruptcy Law
    • Judiciary
    • Law of Contracts
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Sports Law
    • Technology Law
    • Tort Law
  • Interview
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • Publish with Us
LL.B Mania
LL.B Mania

June 5, 2020

Basic Structure Doctrine of Indian Constitution

By Shivi Khare

Article 368 of the constitution of India talks about the power of the parliament to amend any provisions of the constitution, this power to amend includes the amendment in article 368 also. But there is a limitation or a restriction that is put upon the amending powers of the parliament through a doctrine called the BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE.

Basic structure doctrine states that there are certain basic features of the constitution that cannot be altered or amended by the parliament to reduce its scope of it. Basic features include the fundamental rights but the complete list of these basic features is not explicitly defined. This doctrine is a judicial principle (unwritten) that was introduced to us in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala by justice Hans raj Khanna. The understanding and the applicability of the basic structure doctrine can be ambiguous in nature. Various jurists have given different definitions for the basic structure.

In the Minerva Mills case, justice Chandrachud observed that the “Indian constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance parts III AND IV. To give absolute primacy to one to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution.”

The rule of law and judicial review was held as a basic structure in cases like S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and P. Sambamurthy and others v. state of Andhra Pradesh.

The unity and integrity of the nation and parliamentary system were held as the basic structure in the case of Raghunath Rao v. Union of India.

The cases R. Bommai v. Union of India and Poudyal v. Union of India held that Secularism Democracy and Federalism are essential features of our Constitution and are a part of the basic structure.

In the case Kihoto hollohan v. Zachillhu it was held that Democracy is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution, and rule of law; and free and fair elections are basic features of democracy.

I completely support this doctrine and agree with it because its properties enable us to preserve what is there (as in the rights of the people) and also help us to form new provisions which will help us provide better facilities and proper justice to the people. If we follow this doctrine there is a complete guarantee that all amendments that will be happening in the future will be providing the utmost maximum rights to the people who deserve it and need it.

But this doctrine of basic structure has always been subjected to intense debates in the constitutional field with regards to its origin and credibility. It can be criticized as there is a lack of basic in the basic structure doctrine which implies that the supreme court will have power against the amendments that will be made to the constitution by parliament. This power of the supreme court is like a veto power wherein without the supreme courts’ approval the amendment cannot be passed. It depends only on the discretion of the Supreme Court how to use the power of this doctrine. Until now, Supreme Court has used it for the welfare of the public and to uphold the spirit of the Constitution.

Post Views: 322

Related

Constitutional Law Opinion

Post navigation

Previous post
Next post

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tweets by llbmania

Recent Posts

  • Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009 Del HC)
  • State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999 SCC)
  • Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
  • Deo Narayan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973 AIR 473)
  • Finfluencer Regulations Proposed by SEBI: Addressing Real-World Concerns

Archives

  • November 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
©2023 LL.B Mania | WordPress Theme by SuperbThemes

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.