Doctrine of Basic Structure: Meaning, Landmark Cases, and Its Impact on the Indian Constitution

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a constitutional principle that ensures Parliament cannot amend the core framework of the Indian Constitution. Established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), it limits the power of amendments that could undermine democracy, fundamental rights, judicial independence, and the rule of law. The Supreme Court has upheld this doctrine through various landmark judgments to protect constitutional stability and prevent misuse of legislative power. By maintaining judicial review and the separation of powers, the doctrine acts as a safeguard against arbitrary amendments, ensuring that India’s constitutional values remain intact for future generations.

In this article, we will explore the origin, significance, key Supreme Court judgments, features that have shaped the Basic Structure Doctrine. We will also examine how this principle continues to influence constitutional amendments and judicial review in India. For the top landmark judgments, refer to these link

https://www.lawsho.com/top-10-landmark-cases-in-india-every-law-student-must-know-part-1/

https://www.lawsho.com/top-10-landmark-cases-in-india-every-law-student-must-know-2/

 What is the Doctrine of Basic Structure?

The Basic Structure Doctrine states that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot change its fundamental framework. This means that even though Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend, certain core principles must remain intact.

Key Features of the Basic Structure Doctrine

• Sovereignty – Ensures that India remains an independent and self-governing nation.
• Democracy – Protects the democratic system, ensuring free and fair elections.
• Secularism – Guarantees religious freedom and separation of religion from the State.
• Judicial Independence – Ensures that courts remain free from political influence.
• Rule of Law – Establishes that laws apply equally to all citizens and no one is above the law.

The doctrine prevents any government from misusing its majority to change these fundamental principles. Over time, the Supreme Court has upheld this doctrine in various landmark judgments, reinforcing the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary.

Important Supreme Court Cases on the Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine prevents Parliament from amending the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution. It was established in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, where the Supreme Court ruled that while amendments are allowed, they cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Below is a detailed analysis of the most important cases that shaped this doctrine.

1.  Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) – First Amendment Act

 Overview

The Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) case was the first Supreme Court ruling on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. It questioned whether constitutional amendments were subject to judicial review. The case arose after the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which introduced Articles 31A and 31B to protect land reform laws from being struck down by courts.

Background and Legal Dispute

After independence, land reform laws were introduced to abolish the zamindari system, but landlords challenged them, arguing they violated the Right to Property under Article 31. To protect these laws, Parliament passed the First Constitutional Amendment, placing them in the Ninth Schedule, making them immune from judicial review. The petitioner, Shankari Prasad, argued that fundamental rights could not be amended by Parliament.

 Judgment Given by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, stating that Parliament had full authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368. It held that constitutional amendments were not "laws" under Article 13, meaning they could not be challenged for violating fundamental rights.

Conclusion

This ruling upheld Parliament’s unrestricted power to amend the Constitution. However, later cases like Golaknath (1967) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) placed limits on this power, leading to the Basic Structure Doctrine, which protects the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) – Supreme Court Ruling on Constitutional Amendments

Overview

The Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) case was a major Supreme Court ruling on Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. It challenged the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964, which placed land reform laws under the Ninth Schedule, making them immune from judicial review.

Background and Legal Dispute

Following the Shankari Prasad (1951) ruling, which upheld Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution, the government continued passing amendments that impacted fundamental rights, particularly the Right to Property under Article 31. The Seventeenth Amendment expanded the Ninth Schedule, restricting judicial review. Sajjan Singh, the petitioner, argued that fundamental rights formed the core of the Constitution and could not be altered arbitrarily.

Judgment Given by the Supreme Court

In a 3:2 majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights, reaffirming Shankari Prasad. The Court held that constitutional amendments were not subject to judicial review under Article 13. However, two dissenting judges, Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar, raised concerns about unrestricted amendment powers, suggesting that the Constitution might have a "basic structure" that could not be altered.

 Conclusion

While the Sajjan Singh case reaffirmed Parliament’s amending power, it also introduced concerns about unchecked amendments. These concerns later contributed to the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which placed limits on Parliament’s ability to alter the Constitution’s core principles.

3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – Restricting Parliament’s Power to Amend Fundamental Rights

Overview

The Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case was a landmark judgment that restricted Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. It questioned whether Parliament had absolute authority under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The case arose when the Punjab government’s land reform laws restricted property rights, affecting the Golaknath family, who argued that these laws violated their Right to Property under Article 31.

Background and Legal Dispute

After independence, the government introduced land reform laws to redistribute land and abolish the zamindari system. Landowners challenged these laws, claiming they violated fundamental rights. In Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), the Supreme Court had ruled that Parliament could amend fundamental rights. However, in Golaknath, the petitioners argued that fundamental rights were the backbone of the Constitution and could not be altered.

Court Proceedings and Judgment

In a 6:5 majority ruling, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under Article 368. The Court ruled that allowing amendments to fundamental rights could weaken democracy and individual freedoms. 

Conclusion

The Golaknath ruling placed limits on Parliament’s amendment powers. In response, the government passed the Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1971), restoring Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution. This was later challenged in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), leading to the Basic Structure Doctrine, which permanently restricted Parliament’s power to alter fundamental constitutional principles. 

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine

Overview

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case was a landmark judgment that introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It arose when Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader, challenged Kerala’s land reform laws, which restricted property ownership. Though primarily about property rights, the case led to a historic ruling on constitutional amendments and Parliament’s authority under Article 368. 

Background and Legal Dispute

Before this case, the Supreme Court had ruled in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, in Golaknath (1967), the Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. In response, the government passed the Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1971), restoring Parliament’s amendment power. Kesavananda Bharati challenged this amendment, leading to one of India’s most significant constitutional debates.

Judgment Given by the Supreme Court

A 13-judge Supreme Court bench, in a 7:6 majority ruling, held that Parliament could amend the Constitution but could not alter its "basic structure". The Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced, ensuring that democracy, secularism, judicial independence, and the rule of law could not be amended or destroyed.

Conclusion

This judgment became the foundation of constitutional protection in India. It prevented arbitrary amendments, ensuring that democracy and fundamental rights remain intact. The Basic Structure Doctrine continues to protect the core values of the Constitution, balancing Parliament’s power and judicial review.

5. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – A Landmark Case on Electoral Integrity

Overview

The Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case was a significant Supreme Court ruling that addressed electoral malpractice and the limits of parliamentary power. The case arose from the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, where Indira Gandhi was accused of electoral fraud. The ruling questioned the validity of her election and challenged a constitutional amendment that sought to shield the Prime Minister from judicial review. It played a crucial role in reinforcing the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that democracy and free elections remain protected. 

Background and Legal Dispute

Indira Gandhi won the 1971 general elections from Rae Bareli, defeating Raj Narain, who later challenged her victory in the Allahabad High Court. He alleged that government machinery and state resources were misused during her campaign. On June 12, 1975, the court found her guilty of electoral malpractice, disqualifying her from holding office for six years. In response, the government passed the 39th Amendment (1975), placing the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review, which was then challenged in the Supreme Court.

Judgment Given by the Supreme Court

On November 7, 1975, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 39th Amendment, ruling that democracy, free elections, and judicial review were part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure and could not be removed. However, Indira Gandhi’s election was upheld on technical grounds. 

Conclusion

This case reaffirmed that no individual, including the Prime Minister, is above the law. It protected democracy, judicial independence, and electoral integrity, setting a precedent against misuse of constitutional amendments.

6. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – Strengthening the Basic Structure Doctrine

Overview

The Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case was a significant Supreme Court ruling that reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which was first established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). The case dealt with the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy and questioned Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution without limits.

Background and Legal Dispute

Minerva Mills, a textile mill in Karnataka, was nationalized under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The owners challenged this action, arguing that it violated their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31. More importantly, the case also challenged the validity of the 42nd Amendment, which had granted Parliament unrestricted authority to amend the Constitution without judicial review.

Judgment Given by the Supreme Court

In a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment, ruling that Parliament could not alter the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court reaffirmed that judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are essential components of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Minerva Mills judgment reinforced constitutional limitations on Parliament’s power, ensuring that Fundamental Rights remain protected. It preserved judicial review, prevented authoritarian amendments, and upheld the separation of powers, democracy, and individual freedoms, shaping India’s constitutional future. 

7. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) – Clarifying the Scope of the Basic Structure Doctrine

Overview

The Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) case was a significant Supreme Court ruling that further clarified the Basic Structure Doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). It addressed whether laws placed under the Ninth Schedule before and after April 24, 1973, could be challenged for violating fundamental rights.

 Background and Legal Dispute

After independence, land reform laws were introduced to abolish the zamindari system. Many landowners challenged these laws, arguing they violated the Right to Property under Article 31. To protect these laws, Parliament placed them under the Ninth Schedule, making them immune from judicial review. The petitioners in Waman Rao argued that laws violating fundamental rights should not be shielded from judicial scrutiny, while the government claimed that all laws under the Ninth Schedule were beyond challenge.

Judgment Given by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that amendments made before April 24, 1973, were valid, but those made after this date could be struck down if they violated the Basic Structure Doctrine. This clarified that future amendments must comply with constitutional principles.

Conclusion

The Waman Rao judgment reinforced judicial oversight, preventing Parliament from misusing the Ninth Schedule to bypass judicial review. It ensured that future amendments could not override fundamental rights, preserving the spirit of the Constitution.

8. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Defining the Scope of Federalism and Secularism 

Overview

The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case was a landmark ruling that restricted the misuse of President’s Rule under Article 356 and reaffirmed secularism as a fundamental part of the Constitution. It addressed whether a state government’s dismissal could be judicially reviewed and whether secularism was an essential constitutional principle.

Background and Legal Dispute

In 1989, the Janata Dal government in Karnataka, led by S.R. Bommai, was dismissed by the central government under Article 356, citing a loss of majority. Bommai challenged this, arguing that the dismissal was politically motivated and violated federalism.

Judgment Given by the Supreme Court

A nine-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that President’s Rule is subject to judicial review and that state governments cannot be dismissed solely on political grounds. The Court held that a floor test in the assembly must be conducted to determine majority support.

Conclusion

The S.R. Bommai ruling strengthened India’s federal structure and prevented arbitrary dismissals of state governments. By making Article 356 subject to judicial review, it ensured that secularism and democracy remain protected, preserving the balance of power between the center and states.

 How the Basic Structure Doctrine Affects the Constitution

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a key principle in Indian constitutional law that prevents Parliament from altering the core structure of the Constitution. Established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), it ensures that constitutional amendments do not destroy fundamental principles like democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

Key Effects on the Constitution

Protection of Fundamental Rights

Prevents Parliament from making amendments that restrict equality, free speech, and religious liberty.Ensures that amendments align with justice, liberty, and democracy.

Maintaining the Separation of Powers

Ensures that Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary remain independent.Prevents amendments that weaken judicial authority or concentrate power in one branch.

The Basic Structure Doctrine is essential for maintaining constitutional stability and preventing misuse of amendment powers. By ensuring that India remains a democratic and constitutional republic, it continues to protect fundamental rights, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

 Key Features of the Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that Parliament cannot change the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Introduced in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), it prevents amendments that could alter India’s democratic framework. While Article 368 allows Parliament to amend the Constitution, this doctrine restricts changes that weaken democracy, fundamental rights, or judicial independence.

Protection of Fundamental Rights

Ensures that equality, freedom of speech, and religious freedom cannot be restricted.Prevents any government from passing laws that violate individual freedoms.

Supremacy of the Constitution

The Constitution is the highest legal authority, and no amendment can change its essential framework. Ensures that all laws and policies follow constitutional limits.

Judicial Review

The Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional amendments. Prevents governments from misusing amendment powers.

 Separation of Powers

Ensures that Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary remain independent. Stops Parliament from concentrating power in one branch.

Federalism

Maintains the balance between the Union and State governments. Prevents Parliament from reducing state autonomy.

 Secularism and Democracy

Ensures India remains a secular state. Protects free and fair elections and the rule of law.

The Basic Structure Doctrine is crucial in protecting the Constitution from arbitrary amendments, ensuring that democracy, fundamental rights, and judicial independence remain intact. By maintaining constitutional stability, it safeguards India’s core values for future generations.

 Can Parliament Change the Basic Structure of the Constitution?

The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament. Established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), it prevents amendments that could destroy democracy, secularism, judicial independence, or fundamental rights.

 Why Parliament Cannot Change the Basic Structure

Fundamental Rights Protection – No amendment can take away basic rights like equality, freedom of speech, or religious liberty.

Preserving Democracy – The Constitution ensures free elections and the rule of law, preventing any party from gaining absolute power.

Judicial Review – Parliament cannot remove the judiciary’s power to strike down unconstitutional amendments.

Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure. The Supreme Court acts as its guardian, ensuring that democracy, judicial independence, and fundamental rights remain intact.

 The Role of Courts in Protecting the Basic Structure

The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that core principles of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament. Introduced in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this doctrine has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India to protect democracy, judicial independence, and fundamental rights.

Ensuring Constitutional Supremacy

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and ensures that Parliament’s amendment power does not override constitutional principles. By applying the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court prevents any government from using its majority to make fundamental changes.

Judicial Review of Amendments

The judiciary has the power to review and strike down amendments that violate the basic structure. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down amendments that threatened democracy and judicial independence.

Balancing Rights and Government Power

Courts protect Fundamental Rights from being altered and maintain the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. This prevents any ruling party from changing the Constitution for its own benefit. 

Timeline of Landmark Cases Shaping the Basic Structure Doctrine: (1951-1994)

Most Important Questions Answered:

1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine in the Indian Constitution?
   The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its fundamental framework, such as democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law.
2. Which case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, and what was its significance?
   The doctrine was established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy its basic structure.
3. How did the Supreme Court ruling in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) affect Parliament’s amendment powers?
   The Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, restricting its power and leading to the introduction of the Basic Structure Doctrine in later cases.
4. What was the impact of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) on electoral integrity?
   The Supreme Court struck down parts of the 39th Amendment, reinforcing that democracy, free elections, and judicial review are part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure.
5. How did the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case strengthen the Basic Structure Doctrine?
   The Court ruled that Parliament could not amend the Constitution in a way that removes judicial review or disturbs the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
6. Can Parliament change the Basic Structure of the Constitution?
   No, Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters its Basic Structure, as the judiciary has the power to strike down unconstitutional amendments.
7. What role does judicial review play in protecting the Basic Structure Doctrine?
   Judicial review ensures that unconstitutional amendments are struck down, maintaining constitutional supremacy and preventing the misuse of legislative power.

Conclusion

The judiciary safeguards the Constitution by preventing amendments that violate its basic structure. By upholding judicial review, democracy, and separation of powers, courts ensure that the Constitution remains intact for future generations.