INTRODUCTION
According to CJI Chandrachud, “the basic structure of our Constitution guides and gives specific direction to interpreters and implementers when the way ahead is complicated, much like the North Star.[1]” The judiciary has not provided a clear definition of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. There are fundamental components of the Constitution that Parliament cannot alter or eliminate through amendments, as per the “basic structure doctrine,” a tenet in Indian law. The Constitution’s guarantee of fundamental rights is essential to these “basic features.”[2] The Indian Constitution is a written constitution because it needs to be amended regularly to reflect the needs of society. Any provision of the Indian Constitution can be inserted, altered, or deleted by Parliament by complying with the procedures stated in Article 368. Although the constitution can be changed by Parliament, its essential structure cannot be altered or removed. The major objectives are to analyse how the Basic Structure Doctrine has evolved via landmark judicial pronouncements, describe the “basic features” of the Constitution, and analyse how this doctrine continues to define and limit the authority granted to Parliament by Article 368 to modify the Constitution.[3]
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Since independence, the concept of restricting the “parliament’s power” to breach the Indian Constitution did not arise at once, as it was enacted on January 26, 1950. In the Shankari Prasad case, the Court first maintained the First Amendment’s legitimacy. The Court later upheld this in the Sajjan Singh case, acknowledging the power of Parliament to amend any component of the Constitution. The Supreme Court overruled this more lenient stance in the case of I.C. Golaknath, ruling contrary to its earlier decision. The Court ruled in a 6–5 majority judgment that the Court held Parliament cannot amend or repeal basic rights, maintaining that an amendment amounts to a type of “law” under Article 13(2) and is therefore subject to constitutional restrictions.
EVOLUTION OF BASIC STRUCTURE
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)[4] After a challenge to the constitutional validity of the 1st Amendment Act, which enacted Articles 31A and 32B, Parliament has the authority to modify the constitution, including fundamental rights, as per the Supreme Court ruling.[5]
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)[6] uses more acts of estate acquisition under the 17th Amendment Act. The Supreme Court concluded that changing the constitution requires altering its provisions to uphold the judgment in the previous case.
- C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967),[7] by changing part III of the Constitution, the Court held that Parliament lacked the authority to restrict or eliminate basic rights. This led to the overturning of previous decisions in the Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad instances.
- Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, (1973),[8] Parliament can modify any article of the Constitution following a Supreme Court ruling. This power to amend is not unfettered, however, and it does not include allowing the essential aspects or structure to have the constitution torn down or eliminated.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975),[9] the 39th Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unlawful since it shielded the prime minister’s election from review by the courts. The court decided that the amendment undermined the basic structural concept, specifically under the separation of powers doctrine and free and fair elections.
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980),[10] the Court ruled that Article 368’s Clauses (4) and (5) were unconstitutional as they ostensibly threatened the Constitution’s basic structure. These clauses were believed to jeopardise the basic feature of “judicial review,” which is a significant component of the Indian Constitution. Later, it was discovered that following this judgment, the Constitution itself is important, being the supreme law of the state and the foundation of all other law, instead of Parliament or the Supreme Court.
IMPACT ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
- 24th Amendment Act (1971): This amendment modified articles 13 and 368, allowing Parliament to diminish fundamental rights through constitutional amendments. It was required that a Constitutional Amendment Bill be approved by the President. The constitutional legality of this amendment was confirmed by the important case of Kesavananda Bharati.
- 39th Amendment Act (1975): restricted the Judiciary’s participation in the Speaker of Parliament or Prime Minister’s elections and the elections for President and Vice-President, making these positions beyond legal challenge. It amended Articles 71 and 329, altered the 9th Schedule, and introduced Article 329A, which was ultimately declared illegal due to its infringement of the basic structure.
- 42nd Amendment Act (1976): The administration found it difficult to accept the earlier case’s decision. The 42nd Amendment Act was passed by the parliament in order to add sections (4) and (5) to Article 368. Before or after the 42nd Amendment Act is passed, clause (4) in Article 368 does not change the constitution in any way, including Part III claims or clauses that may be challenged in court. Because no court can challenge a constitutional amendment, this gives the Parliament considerable authority to change any part of the document. Article 368, clause (5), states that Parliament may not restrict the constituent power in any way to change the Constitution’s provisions by adding, changing, or eliminating them.[11]
- 103rd Amendment Act (2019): Critics said the Constitutional Amendment went against the basic structural theory. The Amendment was completely incapable of denying SC/STs, in violation of the Constitution’s Equality Clause and members of backwards classes access to the advantages of economic reservation. The Amendment infringes the fundamental structure doctrine by going against the Equality Clause, therefore violating the Constitution.[12]
CONCLUSION
In Indian constitutional history, the foundation of the Basic Structure Doctrine was a significant turning point. Initially, the Supreme Court granted Parliament extensive power to amend the Constitution, including the section on universal rights. However, in the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court ruled that some fundamental provisions were outside the purview of legislation. This finally led to the well-known Kesavananda Bharati decision, where the Court ruled that although Parliament has broad modified power under Article 368, it is not allowed to change or remove the fundamental tenets of the Constitution. Since then, this theory has been an essential restraint on legislative overreach, guaranteeing the protection of the rule of law, democracy, judicial review, and fundamental rights irrespective of the political environment. It has served as a guide for the judiciary since it has reviewed several constitutional amendments, ranging from the 39th and 42nd to the 103rd. Despite being a living document, the Constitution is not adaptable. Currently serving as a constitutional guide, the Basic Structure Doctrine guides both the legislature and the courts. This guarantees that even though the Constitution may change over time, its fundamental qualities will always be upheld, safeguarding not only the text but also the essence of Indian democracy.
Author(s) Name: Gungun Sharma (Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Department of Law, Indore)
References:
[1] Omkar Gokhale, (Aditya Poonia (Basic structure doctrine: V-P criticised it, Chief Justice of India calls it ‘north star’, guiding light) The Indian Express (22 January 2023) https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/basic-structure-doctrine-v-p-criticised-it-chief-justice-of-india-calls-it-north-star-guiding-light-8396576 accessed 7 July 2025.
[2] Dr Pallavi Kota, ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure, Indian Constitution and Fundamental Rights’ in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights; Duties and Responsibilities (INFLIBNET e-book, July 2014) https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/hrdp01/chapter/doctrine-of-basic-structure-indian-constitution-and-fundamental-rights/ accessed 7 July 2025.
[3] NLU Assam, Kesavananda Bharati Verdict: A Landmark in Constitutional Law (2021) https://nluassam.ac.in/docs/pub/Kesavananda%20Bharati%20Verdict.pdf accessed 7 July 2025.
[4] Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) SCR 89.
[5] NLU Assam, Kesavananda Bharati Verdict: A Landmark in Constitutional Law (2021) https://nluassam.ac.in/docs/pub/Kesavananda%20Bharati%20Verdict.pdf accessed 7 July 2025.
[6] Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) SCR (1) 933.
[7] I.C. Golaknath v State of Punjab (1967) SCR (2) 762.
[8] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) SCC (4) 225.
[9] Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975) SCR (2) 347.
[10] Minerva Mills Ltd. v Union of India (1980) SCR (1) 206.
[11] Constitution of India 1950, art 368(4) and (5).
[12] Swapnil Tripathi, ‘Unpacking the 103rd Amendment Verdict – Part I’ (The Basic Structure Blog 11 November 2022) <https://thebasicstructureconlaw.wordpress.com/2022/11/11/unpacking-the-103rd-amendment-verdict-part-i/> accessed 7 July 2025.
