BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

PRERNA FOR IAS

BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
THE GUARDIAN OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY

1). Introduction

The Constitution of India is not merely a legal document; it is the foundational charter that defines the nature of the Indian State, distributes powers among institutions, guarantees fundamental rights, and establishes the framework of democratic governance. The Constitution makers intended it to be a living document capable of adapting to changing circumstances through amendments. Accordingly, Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.

However, a critical constitutional question emerged soon after independence: Does Parliament possess unlimited power to amend the Constitution? Can it alter or abolish any provision, including Fundamental Rights? Can Parliament destroy the very identity of the Constitution through amendments?

The answer to these questions evolved through a series of judicial decisions culminating in the Basic Structure Doctrine. Today, this doctrine is regarded as one of the greatest contributions of the Indian judiciary to constitutional law. It ensures that while Parliament may amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy its essential character.

2). Historical Background

The Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950. The Constituent Assembly deliberately made the Constitution amendable so that future generations could adapt it to changing social, economic, and political realities. At the same time, the Constitution was intended to remain supreme and not become a victim of temporary political majorities.

The issue first arose in the context of land reform laws. Soon after independence, Parliament enacted constitutional amendments to protect agrarian reforms from challenges based on Fundamental Rights. This led to a prolonged constitutional conflict between Parliament and the judiciary regarding the extent of Parliament's amending power.

3)       The Early Judicial Approach: Parliamentary Supremacy

(i)                      Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

The First Constitutional Amendment sought to protect land reform legislation. Its validity was challenged on the ground that it violated Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court upheld the amendment and ruled that:

• Constitutional amendment is different from ordinary legislation.
• Article 13 applies only to ordinary laws.
• Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

This judgment established the principle that Parliament's amending power was virtually unlimited.

(ii)                   Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

The validity of the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment was challenged.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed Shankari Prasad and held that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights. The Court observed that if the framers intended Fundamental Rights to be unamendable, they would have expressly stated so.

These decisions established judicial acceptance of broad parliamentary authority.

(iii)                The Turning Point: Golaknath Case

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

This case marked a dramatic shift.

An eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that:

• Fundamental Rights occupy a transcendental position.
• Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
• Constitutional amendments fall within the meaning of "law" under Article 13.

The Court therefore restricted Parliament's amending power significantly.

(iv)                 Political Response: Constitutional Amendments

The Golaknath judgment created tension between Parliament and the judiciary.

To restore its authority, Parliament enacted:

• 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
• 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
• 29th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment explicitly declared that Parliament possesses the power to amend any provision of the Constitution and made Presidential assent mandatory.

These amendments set the stage for the most important constitutional case in Indian history.