An Interdisciplinary Approach to Basic Structure Doctrine of Indian Constitution

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Basic Structure Doctrine of Indian Constitution

12 Jan, 2023

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Basic Structure Doctrine of Indian Constitution

Author – Surjit Raiguru, Student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune

 “The Constitution is not a document for the Government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the Government.”-JAMES PATTRICK

INTRODUCTION:

The Indian Constitution is widely regarded as the most elaborate of its type, but glitches are what keep the legal system running. This research article seeks to answer the question of how vital it is for the basic structure of the Constitutional law to stay exceedingly fundamental so that Parliament does not become a dictator. This research article also aims to address as it is the most disputed problem in constitutional law, not only because it has long been a major hurdle in Parliament’s efforts to gain authority over the court, but also because such an indeterminate possibility word necessitates a deeper comprehension[1]. To comprehend this concept, several discourses are required, and this work strives to be one of them. The objective of this research will be on an introduction to our country’s supreme law, a broader grasp of how amendments work, and a focus on the origins of this doctrine, which will ultimately lead to its spectacular debut in the Indian judicial system[2].

This article tries to depict the goal of the Indian Constitution which is to defend people’s freedoms and privileges while preserving the integrity of the Indian democratic government. The Indian Constitution’s Basic Structure Doctrine aids in the protection and preservation of the nationalistic spirit. This article mainly focuses on the notion of basic foundation, which is nothing other than a judicial invention designed to prevent Parliament from abusing its amendment powers. The concept is that the core aspects of the Indian Constitution should not be changed to the point that the Constitution’s uniqueness is erased.

ISSUES ADDRESSED:

As rightly pointed out by Alexander Hamilton, “the ability to remedy defects and unintended consequences of a constitutional text can make constitutions more enduring. As political practices change over time, adjustments to the constitutional text keep it aligned with current practices and help ensure its continued relevance”.

The issues have a wonderful sophistication, as they’re the one among their type. Even the most fundamental questions were accompanied by a diverse variety of debates. The difficulties that needed to be addressed in the Basic Doctrine of the Indian Constitution were as follows:

  • Is not the Doctrine of Basic Structure a vague doctrine?
  • What is the Source of ‘Amending Power’ in the Indian Constitution?
  • What is the Scope and Extent of Amending Power concerning Article 368?

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH PAPER:

The fundamental objective of this research paper is to showcase that the word ‘basic structure’ doesn’t even appear in the constitution and how it was coined by our judicial system to safeguard the original concepts of our forefathers from Parliament’s unrestricted capacity to change the supreme legal system. This article will also provide a brief introduction to the constitution denoting the various aspects which led to the foundation of the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. It will exhibit the core idea behind the constitution and how those perspectives differed from time to time.

This research article manifests that Constitution is a flexible instrument that guarantees the Parliament and the state legislature the authority to legislate within their territorial limits, as spelled out in Article 246 and even though this status is not formally limited, it does have some boundaries that must be respected, including how the Judiciary vested in the Constitution is in charge of ensuring the protection of all rights enshrined in the Constitution and powers granted to its individuals and the Government.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

The Indian Constitution, as well crafted as it is, bears in mind that it was drafted more than 70 years ago, and hence, like everything else in the world, it is weathered. It is weathered because it was created in a time when a nation was struggling to sustain itself; ever since generations have observed our motherland’s progress, it is necessary to note how drastically this shift has occurred. And, at the same time as the country worked to develop, remodel, adapt, and modify its original shape, the welfare system saw it as necessary to rewrite the Constitution to meet the demands of the citizens[3]. Now it must be acknowledged that these demands will exist as long as like-minded people’s perspectives remain; if there is indeed a change in perception, the concept underlying the characteristics will also have to be revised again. So this is an eco-friendly approach, an ever-evolving process of adjusting to modifications and backing those changes with adjustments.

Although seeking to make constitutional changes tends to involve more operation, more stakeholders, and relatively high consider voting threshold values, anything that is not essentially required in a legislative enactment, our constitutional developers made the task easy. There is a component already implanted in the memorandum that makes rewriting very adaptable for the Parliament. As a result, amendments to the constitution are put to a more rigorous test. The concept of constitutional integrity cannot be questioned or overlooked. That’s where the concept of “Basic Structure of Constitution” comes into play.

Within a year and a half year of the constitution’s promulgation, the first amendment was passed. The First Amendment successfully placed restrictions on freedom of speech, introduced caste-based reservations, and finally delimited the property right, legitimized and legalized the abolishment of the zamindari framework; it also embedded a new schedule of the so-called contradicting[4] constitutional provision immune to judicial review after some heated parliamentary debates.

This legislative authority conferred on Parliament by Article 368 is a wide concept that can be analyzed as a power to alter or amend the power of the constitution. Legislature can be thought of as a catch-all term. It might be deduced from this phrasing that the constraints imposed by Art 13 (2) on the formulation of laws would also apply to modifications The Supreme Court established the principle of prospective overruling, which states that rulings are only effective in the future and not retroactively and that Parliament has no jurisdiction to limit basic rights. As a result, the Supreme Court eventually decided that some aspects of the Constitution are fundamental and cannot be changed in normal conditions, amended.  Even this landmark case was not without its flaws, still unpronounceable.

The challenges are obvious and growing with each approaching day, as the judiciary has ruled that the Parliament’s constituent power is completely limited, whereas the Legislature[5], i.e. the Parliament, has found it incredibly hard to continue to function while adhering to the values of provisions of the constitution. Constitutional limits served as stumbling barriers to the country’s progress. Throughout this period, the battle for dominance between the legislature and the judiciary was particularly visible. Both amendments hampered the following features of the Constitution:

  • Citizens’ privileges and civil liberty;
  • The scope of judicial power that can be used to assist citizens in asserting their basic and vital rights in the face of state regulation;
  • The omnipotent sovereign power of the Indian constitution over the different tiers of government: legislature, judiciary, and executive;
  • The scope of judicial power that can be used to assist citizens in asserting their basic as well as vital rights in the face.

His Holiness, Kesavananda Bharti[6] lodged a plea under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, requesting that the appropriate and regulatory procedures be followed. Fundamental Rights are enforced. The petition was primarily filed to call into question if The Kerala Land Acquisition Act is legal, as is the Kerala Land Reforms Act with the constitutional 24″ and 25″amendments. It was intended for the Supreme Court of the United States to make the biggest decision ever. The Constitutional Bench is a group of judges that are charged with upholding the Constitution would’ve been thirteen in total – whether this is true or not. These laws/amendments were extremely strict. In the viewpoint of the law, this is unconstitutional. For the same, the Court imposed eleven injunctions, distinct decisions that come to the same conclusion, a book of around a thousand pages. The Constitution is essential, it provides fundamental human rights, which are especially important to persons living in democracies. According to the Court, the terms employed in provisions of these ‘rights’ can be changed, but not at the expense of damaging the ‘fundamental structure.’ Only six judges agreed that “basic rights” couldn’t be changed. As a result, it was a minority viewpoint. The modification of Article. 368 was likewise found to be justified for the same reasons. On the previous question, it was decided that while some legal principles, such as natural justice and divine law, cannot be rigorously defined, they remain vital and enforceable.

CONCLUSION:

This paper available in this dissertation will not allow for a full examination of the events that followed the ‘crisis,‘ but the birth and legitimization of this totally wonderful philosophy, as well as its development in Indian law, has been carefully explained with utmost dedication. The Legislation has continued to challenge the Kesavananda Bharti decision, as seen in Waman Rao and Minerva Hills, but all of the decisive justices have upheld the fact that “the judiciary can only protect the Constitution,” and this will continue for the foreseeable future as long as India regards the Constitution as the “Supreme Law.” The ‘basic structure’ must be preserved so that the essential ideals of our country bequeathed by that of the Constituent Assembly can continue to be safeguarded.

REFERENCES:

[1]STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE < https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/colhr45&i=456 >

[2] STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE < https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/colhr45&i=456 >

[3]THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE: ORIGIN ANDLEGITIMISATION < https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/supami17&i=71 >

[4]THE FIRST AMENDMENT ACT, 1951 <  https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-first-amendment-act-1951 >

[5] THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE: ORIGIN ANDLEGITIMISATION < https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/supami17&i=71 >

[6] Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala [A.J.R. 1973 S.C. 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225.]

Download Author Certificate