Anadi Tiwari
The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case verdict was handed down 50 years ago this month. The case is without a doubt one of the most significant turning points in the development of our Constitution. A 13-judge Bench heard it over the course of 68 days against the backdrop of escalating hostilities between the Executive and the Judiciary.
It was ruled by the Indian Supreme Court on April 24, 1973, and the impact it had on how the Indian Constitution was interpreted makes it significant. Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu monastery in Kerala, filed the lawsuit in an effort to overturn the constitutionality of the 24th Amendment Act, which intended to limit the judiciary’s ability to examine constitutional modifications. The Supreme Court of India’s largest-ever convened bench, consisting of 13 judges, heard the case. A razor-thin majority of 7:6 declared that the “basic structure” of the Constitution cannot be changed by the legislature. This is the main lesson from this famous decision, and it has been covered in constitutional law courses for many years.
The ruling in the case is notable for establishing the basic structure theory, which maintains that Parliament cannot change some fundamental provisions of the Constitution, not even through a constitutional amendment. These characteristics include India’s sovereignty, the primacy of the Constitution, the democratic nature of the polity, the application of the rule of law, and the defense of individual rights. Since then, the basic structure concept has established itself as a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, and it has been used in several cases to invalidate constitutional modifications that are thought to violate the Constitution’s fundamental principles.
The idea of basic structure has been tested and developed upon in many Supreme Court decisions in the fifty years after the Kesavananda Bharati case. The case is still significant today as a symbol of the judiciary’s ability to uphold the core ideals of the Indian Constitution and ensure the rights and liberties of Indian citizens. By 2023, the Basic Structure Doctrine will have been in effect for fifty years. The Basic Structure Doctrine has been a key and influential legal idea in India for the past fifty years, influencing how the Indian Constitution has been interpreted and developed.
Origin of Basic Structure doctrine:
The historical and political climate of India in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s can be linked to the development of the ideology of Basic Structure. The Doctrine of Basic Structure has its roots in the early years of Indian independence, when there was a discussion about the nature of constitutional modifications and the boundaries of the Indian Parliament’s amending authority. However, the Supreme Court did not formally establish the doctrine or set forth its guiding principles until the Kesavananda Bharati decision. The Kesavananda Bharati case was a turning point in Indian constitutional history since it was the first time the Indian Supreme Court had both affirmed the legality of a constitutional amendment and placed restrictions on the Indian Parliament’s ability to modify the constitution.
A group of petitioners filed the lawsuit, contesting the constitutionality of the 24th Amendment Act of 1971, which inserted a new Article (Article 13-A) to the Constitution. The petitioners claimed that the amendment infringed on a number of constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to private property and the right to equality before the law. Despite ruling that some “basic features” of the Constitution could not be changed by Parliament, the Supreme Court ultimately maintained the constitutionality of the amendment.
The Supreme Court did not provide a comprehensive list of the fundamental characteristics, but it did name several of them, including the supremacy of the Constitution, India’s sovereignty, the democratic system of government, the separation of powers, and the federal structure of the Indian polity. The Court determined that any change would be unlawful if it breached these fundamental principles. Since then, the Doctrine of Basic Structure has established itself as a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law and has been used in countless cases to invalidate modifications that were determined to be in violation of the Constitution’s fundamental provisions. It continues to be a crucial defense against any attempt to compromise the democratic and federal nature of the Indian Constitution.
The evolution of the Doctrine of Basic Structure in India has been shaped by several landmark cases. Some of the key cases that have contributed to the development of this doctrine are:
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951):
The constitutionality of the First Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951 was contested in the Shankari Prasad case. The Fundamental Rights contained in the Indian Constitution were to be amended as a result of the First Amendment Act. The amendment specifically aimed to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in the State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh case, which had ruled some land reforms illegal. The petitioner, Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, maintained that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution were not subject to the Article 368 power of Parliament to modify the Constitution. The petitioner argued that because Fundamental Rights is a fundamental component of the Constitution, Parliament cannot change them.
In its decision, the Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s arguments and said that Parliament’s ability to alter the Constitution in accordance with Article 368 was plenary and unrestricted. The court determined that because there were no written or implied restrictions on Parliament’s ability to change the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, Parliament had the right to do so. The court’s ruling in the Shankari Prasad case established the principle of Parliament’s unrestricted ability to amend the Constitution and opened the door for later constitutional changes, including those that affected the Fundamental Rights.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):
The constitutionality of the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Act of 1964 was contested in the Sajjan Singh case. The purpose of the 17th Amendment was to redefine property rights as legal rights rather than fundamental rights. The Constitution’s Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, which established the right to property as a basic right, were modified by the amendment. Sajjan Singh, the petitioner, said that the change was unlawful and went against the fundamental principles of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the right to property was a fundamental right and was a component of the Constitution’s essential design. The amendment, which intended to deprive property rights of their status as basic rights, was therefore unlawful.
In its decision, the Supreme Court declared that Article 368’s grant of plenary and unrestricted power to Parliament to change the Constitution to be true. The court ruled that because the right to property was not a component of the Constitution’s fundamental principles, Parliament could change it. The court further determined that the Seventeenth Amendment was constitutional since there were no stated or implied restrictions on Parliament’s ability to change the Constitution in the Constitution. The Sajjan Singh case confirmed the theory of Parliament’s plenary ability to modify the Constitution and reaffirmed the rules established in the Shankari Prasad decision. However, the case also emphasized the need for limitations on Parliament’s amending power, which was later addressed in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), in which the Supreme Court introduced the concept of the basic structure doctrine, which placed certain implied limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):
In 1967, the Supreme Court of India handed down a historic decision in the IC Golaknath case, also known as Golaknath vs. State of Punjab. The Seventeenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment Acts’ constitutionality was contested in this case. The right to property was changed from a basic right to a legal right by the Seventeenth Amendment Act, which aimed to impose some restrictions on it. In relation to agrarian reforms in particular, the Thirteenth Amendment Act and the Fourteenth Amendment Act aimed to put into practise the guiding principles of state policy.
In the IC Golaknath case, the petitioners contended that Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was constrained and that it lacked the right to change the Fundamental Rights. They argued that only issues that had no bearing on the fundamental design or core principles of the Constitution were eligible for amendment by Parliament. In its ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament lacked the power to restrict or eliminate any Fundamental Right through constitutional amendments.
The court ruled that Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution was limited and that the Fundamental Rights, including the right to property, were an integral component of the Constitution’s fundamental design and could not be changed or limited by Parliament. The IC Golaknath case was a crucial turning point in the development of the fundamental structure theory, which constrained Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution and established that the Fundamental Rights were unaffected by such changes. However, other rulings, such the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), further clarified and improved the application and exclusions of the basic structure theory, influencing Indian constitutional law.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
The constitutional amendment authority of Parliament was contested in this case. The disagreement between the Kerala state government and a religious organization led by Kesavananda Bharati, who contested the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which intended to restrict land ownership, gave rise to the lawsuit. Kesavananda Bharati contested the Act’s constitutionality on the grounds that it infringed upon his fundamental constitutionally protected right to own property. The extent of Parliament’s ability to change the Constitution under Article 368 was the bigger concern in this case, though.
The lawyers for Kesavananda Bharati contended that Parliament’s amending power was not unlimited and that there were inherent constraints on such power, particularly with reference to the core framework of the Constitution. They argued that some clauses in the Constitution, including those pertaining to fundamental rights, judicial independence, and federalism, were integral parts of its essential framework and were therefore exempt from constitutional modification. The Kerala Land Reforms Act was confirmed as constitutionally legitimate by the Court in a landmark decision, but it was also determined that certain implied restrictions applied to Parliament’s ability to amend the law.
The court ruled that while Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution, it could not change any of its fundamental provisions. The sovereignty of India, the democratic and republican system of government, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary were all mentioned by the court as being parts of the Constitution’s fundamental construction. It declared that a constitutional amendment would not be valid if it undermined or destroyed the fundamental framework.
A look at the evolution of the Doctrine of Basic Structure through Justice JR Mudholkar’s dissenting opinion in Sajjan Singh’s case:
Several legal academics, including Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and Professor Upendra Baxi, think that Justice JR Mudholkar articulated the idea of Basic Structure in his dissenting opinion in the landmark case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965). While there was no explicit clause in the Constitution restricting the modifying authority of Parliament, there were some implied constraints, according to Justice Mudholkar. Justice Mudholkar claimed that the Constitution has a few key elements that make up its basic structure and that any amendments that alter or destroy this structure are unconstitutional.
In his opinion, the basic structure included features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, India’s sovereignty, the republican and democratic form of government, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the federal character of the Constitution, and the protection of individual liberties. In subsequent cases, such as the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Supreme Court upheld the basic structure doctrine as a necessary component of the Constitution, the basic structure doctrine was developed as a result of Justice Mudholkar’s dissenting opinion in the Sajjan Singh case. Since then, the basic structure concept has emerged as a key component of Indian constitutional law, and it has been used in countless instances to invalidate constitutional modifications that went against the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Additionally, the theory has been essential in sustaining the Constitution’s commitment to safeguarding individual liberties and advancing democratic ideals in India.
The doctrine of Basic Structure under threat:
The doctrine of basic structure has been called into question on several occasions, and there are worries regarding its continued relevance and applicability. Some detractors say that the doctrine has been abused to obstruct critical constitutional reforms and amendments, while others have urged for its elimination since it weakens the democratic process. Despite these concerns, the basic structure theory remains an important part of Indian constitutional law. It establishes a framework for judicial scrutiny of constitutional amendments and ensures that the basic values and principles of the Constitution are protected from arbitrary modifications. There have been significant attempts in recent years to weaken the basic structural theory, particularly by the executive arm of government.
For instance, the government while defending the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, had submitted before the Supreme Court that even if there is a violation of the basic structure doctrine, it is not a ground to attack the validity of a statute. Recently, the Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar had said that the Supreme Court’s Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which restricted the power of the parliament to amend the Constitution is incorrect and started a wrong tradition. The judgment, the Vice President said, gave the idea that parliament can amend the Constitution but not its basic structure.
“With due respect to judiciary, I cannot subscribe to this. Can this be done? Can Parliament allow that its verdict will be subject to any other authority? In my maiden address after I assumed the office of Chairman of Rajya Sabha, I said this. I am not in doubt about it. This cannot happen,” the VP had said.
He had also said that India might be the only country where amendments made by the parliament to the Constitution have been struck down by courts.
Another instance involved the government’s attempt to replace the collegium system of judicial appointments with the National Judicial Appointments Commission, which the Supreme Court declared to be unconstitutional because it undermined the independence of the judiciary and went against the basic structure doctrine.
Despite these difficulties, the basic structure concept continues to be a crucial component of Indian constitutional law, and its consistent implementation is necessary to guarantee that the fundamental values and principles of the Constitution be safeguarded and preserved for upcoming generations.
In conclusion, the historical, political, and constitutional context of the time, the judiciary’s reaction to governmental actions, the interpretation of the Constitution, the constitutional philosophy of the framers, and India’s historical experience with colonial rule all contributed to the formation of the doctrine of Basic Structure. Since then, the idea of Basic Structure has developed into a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, directing how the Constitution is interpreted and developed.
This article was first published on the author’s LinkedIn profile.