Basic structure (doctrine) of the Constitution
The constitution empowers the Parliament and the State Legislatures to make laws within their respective
jurisdiction. Bills to amend the constitution can only be introduced in the Parliament, but this power is not
absolute. If the Supreme Court finds any law made by the Parliament inconsistent with the constitution, it
has the power to declare that law to be invalid. Thus, to preserve the ideals and philosophy of the original
constitution, the Supreme Court has laid down the basic structure doctrine. According to the doctrine, the
Parliament cannot destroy or alter the basic structure of the doctrine.
The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle that the Constitution of India has certain basic
features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament. Key among these
"basic features", as expounded by its most prominent proponent Justice Hans Raj Khanna, are the
fundamental rights granted to individuals by the constitution. The doctrine thus forms the basis of a limited
power of the Supreme Court to review and strike down constitutional amendments enacted by the
Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this "basic structure" of the Constitution. The basic structure
doctrine applies only to constitutional amendments. The basic features of the Constitution have not been
explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a
"basic" feature is determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. The basic structure doctrine
does not apply to ordinary Acts of Parliament, which must itself be in conformity with the Constitution.
Evolution of the Basic Structure
The word "Basic Structure" is not mentioned in the constitution of India. The concept developed gradually
with the interference of the judiciary from time to time to protect the basic rights of the people and the
ideals and the philosophy of the constitution.
• The First Constitution Amendment Act, 1951 was challenged in the Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India
case. The amendment was challenged on the ground that it violates the Part-III of the constitution and
therefore, should be considered invalid. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament, under Article 368,
has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights. The Court gave the same
ruling in Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan case in 1965.
The "basic features" principle was first expounded in 1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his dissent, in the
case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. He wrote,
It is also a matter for consideration whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be
regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the
latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368 ?"[6]
Supreme Court declared that the basic structure/features of the constitution is resting on the basic
foundation of the constitution. The basic foundation of the constitution is the dignity and the freedom of its
citizens which is of supreme importance and can not be destroyed by any legislation of the parliament.[7]
The basic features of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary. At least, 20
features have been described as "basic" or "essential" by the Courts in numerous cases, and have been
incorporated in the basic structure. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Naraian and also in the Minerva
Mills case, it was observed that the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic"
feature would be determined by the Court in each case that comes before it.
• In Golak Nath vs State of Punjab case in 1967, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision. The
Supreme Court held that the Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the constitution as the
fundamental rights are transcendental and immutable. According to the Supreme Court ruling, Article 368
only lays down the procedure to amend the constitution and does not give absolute powers to the
parliament to amend any part of the constitution.
• The Parliament, in 1971, passed the 24th Constitution Amendment Act. The act gave the absolute power
to the parliament to make any changes in the constitution including the fundamental rights. It also made it
obligatory for the President to give his assent on all the Constitution Amendment bills sent to him.
In 1973, in Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th
Constitution Amendment Act by reviewing its decision in Golaknath case. The Supreme Court held that the
