CJI Chandrachud: Basic Structure Doctrine Safeguards Indian Democracy from Absolutism
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized the Basic Structure Doctrine's role in preventing India's democracy from becoming absolute.
Photo by Samyak Bothra
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud recently highlighted the critical role of the Basic Structure Doctrine in safeguarding India's democracy. Speaking at a Constitution Day event, he explained that this doctrine prevents any single branch of government from becoming all-powerful, ensuring a balance and preventing a drift towards absolutism.
He stressed that the doctrine, which emerged from the Kesavananda Bharati case, is not a "relic of the past" but a "North Star" guiding the interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring its core principles remain intact. This is crucial for maintaining the democratic fabric and upholding constitutional values.
Key Facts
Basic Structure Doctrine prevents any single branch of government from becoming all-powerful
It ensures a balance of power and prevents absolutism
The doctrine is a 'North Star' for constitutional interpretation
It emerged from the Kesavananda Bharati case
UPSC Exam Angles
Evolution and landmark cases related to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Key components identified as part of the Basic Structure by the Supreme Court.
The interplay between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.
Role of judicial review and judicial activism/restraint in India.
Article 368 and the amending power of Parliament.
Checks and balances within the Indian democratic framework.
Visual Insights
Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine & Key Milestones
This timeline illustrates the historical progression of the Basic Structure Doctrine, from its origins to its reaffirmation by CJI Chandrachud, highlighting the landmark judgments that shaped its development and significance for Indian democracy.
The Basic Structure Doctrine emerged from a series of conflicts between the Parliament and the Judiciary over the scope of Parliament's amending power, particularly concerning Fundamental Rights. It evolved to become a cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism, ensuring that the core identity of the Constitution remains protected from majoritarian legislative overreach.
- 1951Shankari Prasad Case: SC held Parliament can amend FRs under Art 368.
- 1964Sajjan Singh Case: SC reaffirmed Shankari Prasad, but with a dissenting opinion on the scope of Art 368.
- 1967Golaknath Case: SC reversed earlier rulings, held Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. Led to 24th Amendment.
- 197124th Constitutional Amendment Act: Parliament asserted its power to amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs, and made it mandatory for President to assent to amendment bills.
- 1973Kesavananda Bharati Case: SC upheld Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution but introduced the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' as a limitation.
- 1975-77Emergency Period: Basic Structure Doctrine invoked to challenge 39th and 42nd Amendments, reinforcing its role.
- 1980Minerva Mills Case: SC reaffirmed Basic Structure Doctrine, striking down parts of 42nd Amendment that sought to give DPSP primacy over FRs.
- 1994S.R. Bommai Case: Basic Structure Doctrine applied to federalism, secularism, and democracy, limiting President's power under Article 356.
- 2015NJAC Case: SC struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (99th Amendment) citing it violated the basic structure (independence of judiciary).
- 2023CJI Chandrachud reaffirms Basic Structure Doctrine as 'North Star' safeguarding democracy.
More Information
Background
The Basic Structure Doctrine emerged from a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments, primarily the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in 1973. Prior to this, the Supreme Court had debated the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, particularly Fundamental Rights, in cases like Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1965), and Golaknath (1967).
The Golaknath verdict, which held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended, led to the 24th, 25th, and 26th Constitutional Amendments by Parliament to reassert its amending power. The Kesavananda Bharati case resolved this conflict by establishing that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its 'basic structure'.
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. With reference to the Basic Structure Doctrine, consider the following statements: 1. The doctrine explicitly defines a comprehensive list of features that constitute the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. 2. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established that Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights. 3. The doctrine serves as a check on the amending power of Parliament, preventing it from altering the core identity of the Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.3 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court has not explicitly defined a comprehensive list of basic features; rather, it has identified certain features as basic structure on a case-by-case basis. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that Parliament *can* amend Fundamental Rights, but not in a way that alters the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. The Golaknath case (1967) had previously held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended. Statement 3 is correct. The core purpose of the Basic Structure Doctrine is precisely to limit Parliament's amending power to preserve the fundamental character and identity of the Constitution.
2. Which of the following elements have been affirmed by the Supreme Court as part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution? 1. Judicial Review 2. Secularism 3. Parliamentary System of Government 4. Free and Fair Elections 5. Supremacy of the Constitution Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1, 2 and 3 only
- B.2, 4 and 5 only
- C.1, 3, 4 and 5 only
- D.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
Show Answer
Answer: D
All the listed elements have been affirmed by the Supreme Court as part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution in various judgments. Judicial Review (Minerva Mills case), Secularism (S.R. Bommai case), Parliamentary System of Government, Free and Fair Elections, and Supremacy of the Constitution are all recognized components that cannot be abrogated by parliamentary amendment.
3. In the context of the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine, consider the following statements: 1. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971) affirmed that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. 2. The Minerva Mills case (1980) held that the power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 3. The Waman Rao case (1981) upheld the validity of all constitutional amendments made before April 24, 1973, even if they violated the basic structure. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is correct. The 24th Amendment Act was passed in response to the Golaknath case (1967) and explicitly declared that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is correct. In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine and specifically held that judicial review is a part of the basic structure. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Waman Rao case (1981) clarified that the Basic Structure Doctrine would apply to constitutional amendments made *after* April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment). Amendments made *before* this date were generally considered valid, provided they were not challenged on other grounds, but the statement's phrasing about 'even if they violated the basic structure' is misleading as the doctrine itself wasn't established then.