INTRODUCTION:
The structural integrity of the constitution may be understood as the preservation of the foundational principles and the constitutional values that altogether conserve the constitutional identity and ensure the smooth functioning of its framework. Embodied in the Basic Structure of Doctrine, it explains that even though the provisions of the constitution are amendable, the essential features and the values that laid the foundation of the constitution cannot be altered or changed to avoid undermining the character of the constitutional order and preserve the legitimacy of the state. The power of the Constitution and its applications are vested within the integrity of its structure. The overall coherence of its foundation guides the usage of the various rights and duties provided under the Constitution of India. Principles, customs, and moral obligations have institutionalized the components of the constitutional structure, which help it operate smoothly in our country and benefit the citizens of India. However, a dilemma arises that questions whether some of the provisions are too rigid in nature and possess no room for development or change in the modern and constantly evolving Indian landscape. Landmark Cases such as Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)[1] raise the vital question of how the constitution’s structural integrity is validated if those in power are allowed to place themselves beyond judicial scrutiny and democratic responsibility. While some applications of the constitution are often expressed by the public as unilateral and outdated in nature, the core argument in this context is that what factors determine the frameworks, rules and regulations meant for the governance of a country and what constitutes an intact and complete constitutional structure, and whether an overhaul is needed.
To understand this issue, we must first uncover how the Indian Constitution functions and, if certain provisions are required to be altered, what challenges must be faced to improve the structural integrity of the same.
CONCEPTUALISING THE CONSTITUTION’S STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY:
The foundation of the Indian Constitution is preserved by its structural integrity, and its principles guide the implementation of the frameworks and rules laid out in it. The Constitution of India acts as a testament that guides its citizens on how the nation should be governed, what rights and duties a person possesses, and what safeguards are provided against acts of judicial or societal immorality and injustice. Much like the roots of a plant, the true essence of the constitution lies in its structure, which is derived from different values such as integrity, justice, legitimacy, transparency, etc. These help in constituting a righteous and robust framework that implements the authentic ideals of a democracy.
Moreover, the concept of structural integrity is often mistaken for being a rigid set of agendas, whereas, in practice, it works on the very opposite end of this theory. In its complete sense, it is not based on rigidity but on preserving the core framework of the constitution while fulfilling its purposes of serving the nation as an unbiased and just pillar of law.
CHALLENGES TO THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CONSTITUTION:
Preserving the structural strength of the Indian Constitution in accordance with the evolving nature of the nation poses a serious concern. Whether it is the validity of its provisions, the determination of the most suitable course of action amidst a national issue or resolving a judicial implication. The structure of the Indian Constitution comprises different guiding principles such as equality, morality, secularism, religious freedom, etc., and some issues question the very fundamentals upon which it is formed, which derive their powers from other provisions such as AR. 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, the Basic Structure Doctrine safeguards the prominent foundational principles stated by the Constitution from arbitrary alteration. As a result, any factor affecting these principles is a constraint on the structural integrity itself.
In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)[2], the Supreme Court of India faced the immediate challenge of deciding whether religious practice overrides constitutional rights. The Triple Talaq issue questioned the very root of the structural integrity of the constitution, and the judiciary had to decide on advocating for the rights of individuals as well as preserving the constitutional structure. The Apex Court held that the concept of Triple Talaq was outdated and arbitrary in nature, which, in hindsight, infringed upon the fundamental rights of the citizens of India. In this scenario, the 5 Judge constitution bench with a (3:2) majority recognized that solidifying the constitutional integrity over religious practices governed by religious laws and frameworks was significant, declaring the Triple Talaq concept as invalid and unconstitutional.
Additionally, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019[3], was passed which made Triple Talaq completely ineffective in all forms.
The case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India acts as a perfect example of the judiciary successfully balancing out individual rights with religious freedom and prioritizing the structural integrity of the Indian Constitution above unilateral and biased regulations, acting as a benchmark for preserving the essential values of equality, women’s freedom and rights.
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY:
While Shayara Bano v. UOI (2017) did result in showcasing the balance between religious regulations and constitutional integrity, the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)[4] presented another tremendous complication towards the principles of the structural integrity of the Indian Constitution and the judicial responsibility.
After Raj Narain challenged the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, the Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral violations and thus declared the election void. Later, the parliament passed the 39th amendment of the constitution in 1975, which essentially made the election of the Prime Minister, President, Vice President and the Speaker immune from the ordinary judicial review process, thereby attempting to prevent the court’s functions towards determining the nature of elections. The 39th amendment attempted to challenge the principles of the rule of law and free and fair elections, both of which were components of the Basic Structure Doctrine. This raised a vital point of contention regarding the power of the structural integrity of the Indian Constitution and whether the government could alter provisions of the constitution to their will.
The Supreme Court later held that judicial scrutiny was part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and the amendment questioned the very idea of constitutional integrity. The court also emphasized the significance of free and fair elections and how they affect the very soul of the democracy. The Parliament, in all its power, cannot amend vital constitutional features as this would interfere with the Basic Structure Doctrine which is the backbone of the structural integrity of the constitution.
THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE – A GUIDING PRINCIPLE:
The Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced to safeguard the constitutional integrity and structure against such amendments that are arbitrary in nature and might alter the fundamentals of constitutional identity and reshape it.
The principle was established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)[5], where the Apex Court held, by a (7:6) majority of a 13-judge bench, that the parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article.368[6], but cannot amend or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
The case remains a pivotal precedent by elaborating the amendment process and preserving the Indian Constitution’s structural integrity.
DEBATE FOR OVERHAUL – NECESSARY OR NEEDLESS?
Since the initial applications of the constitutional provisions in India, historians, politicians, scholars and researchers have all contributed their schools of thought towards an overhaul. A text that is accountable for the governance of a nation should not be outdated; rather, it should be constantly evolving, flexible and open to amendments & abolition of certain provisions which may not be in accordance with the modern societal standards. Factors such as technological advancements in society, gender neutrality in both professional and personal landscapes, caste prejudice, equal pay in employment, etc., should be taken into consideration, and provisions should be made or reformed for the same.
One of the most intriguing arguments for an overhaul is the judicial delays and backlogs. The constitutional structure demands certain prerequisites, and adherence to the laws related to the structural integrity of the constitution can be time-consuming. Moreover, the rigid framework of approach towards the judicial system and the functioning of the judiciary abiding by the norms of the constitutional structure, while competing with the challenges of a modern India, plays a crucial role in the pendency of cases. Certain principles underlying the structural integrity of the Indian Constitution, while justified, may be conceived as dogmatic in certain situations.
On the flip side, it is imperative to remember that the Constitution of India has served the nation through numerous national, societal and judicial conflicts for 76 years. While some may argue about the rigidity of the constitutional structure, elements such as the Basic Structure Doctrine express flexibility by not prohibiting constitutional amendments in their totality but rather placing limits on amendments to safeguard the structural integrity of the Indian Constitution.
Thus, it remains important to carefully analyze the factors affecting the constitution and determine whether certain articles are ironclad in nature and should be reformed or amended to provide ethical remedies.
CONCLUSION:
The structural integrity of the Indian Constitution is a vital component for the functioning of the constitutional applications. However, formidable challenges in accordance with the evolving socio-legal landscape exist, and necessary changes need to be implemented upon a careful examination of some of the provisions of the constitution so that it guarantees relief for the citizens of our nation. It is paramount that important reforms be made to the Constitution, but it is absolutely imperative that these reforms should not come at the expense of the constitutional identity.
Hence, the debate should not be regarding a complete overhaul, but rather it should be around achieving measured and constructive reforms which address the issues of the people while conserving the constitutional integrity, secularism, judicial review and the principles of the rule of law. The Indian Constitution needs refinement instead of replacement to ensure that its applications cater to the needs of the public and the essence of constitutionalism remains resilient.
References:
[1] Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain 1975 Supp SCC 1.
[2] Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
[3] Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, No 20 of 2019.
[4] Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain 1975 Supp SCC 1.