Basic Structure of Indian Constitution with Special reference to Keshavananda Bharathi Case

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land. It provides a flexible yet well-guarded process for amendment under Article 368, ensuring that necessary changes can be made to meet evolving needs. However, this power to amend is not unlimited. Over time, the “Basic Structure Doctrine” has emerged as a vital safeguard to protect the core values of the Constitution from arbitrary or excessive amendments. This doctrine was firmly established by the landmark judgment in the Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, which remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.

What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?

Basic Structure Doctrine holds that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution. This means that certain fundamental principles, such as democracy, secularism, rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, form the core of the Constitution and are inviolable.

The doctrine is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but has been evolved by the Supreme Court through judicial interpretation to prevent the abuse of constitutional amendment powers by Parliament.

Background of the Keshavananda Bharati Case

The Keshavananda Bharati case, decided on 24 April 1973, arose during a time when Parliament frequently amended the Constitution, especially to override judicial decisions that struck down land reform laws. This case was initiated by Swami Keshavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu monastery in Kerala, who challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969, on the grounds that it violated his fundamental rights under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs).

During the proceedings, the challenge extended to the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly in light of previous cases like:

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) – upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights.

• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) – reaffirmed the above view.

• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – held that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.

The Keshavananda Bharati case was placed before the largest ever constitutional bench of 13 judges, making it the longest and most significant constitutional case in India’s history.

Judgment of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court, in a narrow 7:6 majority, delivered a historic and complex judgment. The Court held that:

• Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

• However, such amendments must not violate or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

This was the first time the concept of “Basic Structure” was articulated and upheld by the Court, marking a constitutional revolution. The judgment clarified that Article 368 does not give Parliament absolute power and that certain features are fundamental and beyond the reach of amendment.

Elements of the Basic Structure (Illustrative List):

The Supreme Court did not define the complete list of what constitutes the “basic structure”, but over the years, through various judgments, it has identified several features. These include:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution

2. Sovereign, democratic, and republican nature of the Indian polity

3. Secular character of the Constitution

4. Separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary

5. Federal character of the Constitution

6. Unity and integrity of the nation

7. Judicial review

8. Free and fair elections

9. Rule of law

10. Independence of the judiciary

11. Parliamentary system of government

12. Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

This list is not exhaustive and may evolve through further interpretations by the Supreme Court.

Significance of the Keshavananda Bharati Case:

1. Checks and Balances: The judgment imposed a necessary check on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, preserving the spirit of the Constitution.

2. Judicial Supremacy: It reaffirmed the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution, entrusted with ensuring that the fundamental principles are upheld.

3. Democratic Safeguard: The doctrine protects individual rights, democracy, and the rule of law from political excesses or majoritarian impulses.

4. Constitutional Stability: It ensures that the core values remain intact, regardless of political changes or pressures.

5. Future Influence: The doctrine has influenced later rulings, such as Minerva Mills (1980) and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), where the Supreme Court struck down constitutional amendments that violated the basic structure.

Criticism of the Basic Structure Doctrine:

Despite its importance, the doctrine has attracted criticism:

• Not Mentioned in the Constitution: Critics argue that the basic structure doctrine is a judicial creation with no textual basis in Article 368.

• Judicial Overreach: Some see it as an example of the judiciary limiting the sovereignty of Parliament.

• Vague and Subjective: The definition of “basic structure” is not precise and may lead to inconsistent interpretations.

However, these criticisms are outweighed by the doctrine’s role in preserving constitutional democracy in India.