Basic Structure Doctrine - Origin, Evolution, and Landmark Cases

Basic Structure Doctrine (India) – Origin, Evolution, and Landmark Cases

Imagine this: a powerful government wins a huge majority in Parliament. Then it passes a constitutional amendment saying, “Courts cannot review our amendments, and elections can be postponed whenever we feel it is necessary.” If such an amendment becomes valid, then what will stop Parliament from changing India’s Constitution into anything it wants?

This exact fear gave birth to one of the most important ideas in Indian polity: the Basic Structure Doctrine. It is the “safety lock” that ensures India remains a democracy with rule of law, free elections, judicial review, and constitutional limits—no matter who is in power.

Why this topic matters for UPSC

• Prelims: Case-year matching (Kesavananda 1973, Minerva Mills 1980, I.R. Coelho 2007, NJAC 2015), Article 368 limits, judicial review, Ninth Schedule.
• Mains (GS2): Parliament vs Judiciary, constitutionalism, democratic checks and balances, limits on amending power, role of Supreme Court.
• Essay/Interview: “Is Basic Structure judicial activism or constitutional protection?” “Can democracy survive without constitutional limits?”

Background: Why did India need the Basic Structure Doctrine?

After Independence, the Indian state wanted fast social and economic reforms—especially land reforms to reduce zamindari and redistribute land. But many such laws were challenged in courts for violating Fundamental Rights, especially the right to property (which was a Fundamental Right then).

This created a major constitutional tension:

• Parliament’s view: “We represent the people. We should be able to amend the Constitution for social justice.”
• Judiciary’s concern: “If Parliament can amend anything without limits, it can also end democracy, courts, and rights.”

So the key question became:

Is Parliament’s amending power unlimited, or does the Constitution have some unchangeable core?

Key Constitutional Provisions behind the debate

• Article 368: Gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution through a special procedure.
• Article 13(2): Says the State shall not make any “law” that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights.

The legal fight was mainly about one word: Is a constitutional amendment a “law” under Article 13?

Phase 1: Early Supreme Court stand (1951–1965)

1) Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

Issue: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?

Judgment: Yes. The Supreme Court said a constitutional amendment is not “law” under Article 13(2). So Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

Impact: Parliament got strong support for amending power.

2) Sajjan Singh Case (1965)

Judgment: Supreme Court again upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.

Important turning seed: Some judges raised a serious question: Are there certain “basic features” of the Constitution that cannot be amended?

This was not the final doctrine yet, but the idea entered judicial thinking.

Phase 2: The big shock – Golaknath (1967)

Golaknath v State of Punjab (1967) changed everything.

Judgment (simple): Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

• The Court said constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13.
• So amendments cannot take away Fundamental Rights.

Why it mattered: This decision was seen as blocking Parliament from making social reforms if they touched rights.

Parliament’s response: Parliament did not accept this and introduced constitutional amendments to restore its power:

• 24th Amendment (1971): Clearly said Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• It also stated Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments.

Now the stage was set for the biggest constitutional battle in India’s history.

Phase 3: Birth of the doctrine – Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) is the foundation of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

What was the case about?

Kesavananda Bharati, a religious head (seer) in Kerala, challenged land reform laws and constitutional amendments that affected property and other rights. But the Supreme Court used the case to settle the larger constitutional question:

How far can Parliament go while amending the Constitution?

Bench and scale

• 13-judge bench (largest bench in Indian history).
• Multiple separate opinions were written.

The core decision (easy to remember)

Parliament can amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot destroy or damage the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

Majority: The view supporting “limited amending power + basic structure” won by a narrow margin (often described as 7–6).

What did the Court mean by “basic structure”?

The Court did not give a single fixed list. It gave examples and said the basic structure is the core identity of the Constitution.

Practical meaning:

• Parliament can make changes to improve the Constitution.
• But it cannot change India into a dictatorship, remove elections, remove judicial review, or destroy federalism.

Why Kesavananda is called a “constitutional safety wall”: It prevents any temporary political majority from permanently damaging India’s constitutional democracy.

What exactly counts as Basic Structure? (Important for Mains)

The Supreme Court has identified different elements across different cases. The list is not closed (not final). But certain features appear again and again.

Note: UPSC expects you to write: “Basic structure is not an exact list; it is a judicially evolved principle based on constitutional identity.”

How the Court tests an amendment (Basic Structure Test)

In simple steps, the Court usually asks:

1. Which constitutional feature is affected by the amendment? (e.g., judicial review, federalism, free elections)
2. How serious is the impact? Is it a normal change or does it “destroy/abrogate” the feature?
3. Does the amendment damage the Constitution’s identity? If yes, it fails the test.

Key idea: The Court does not stop all changes. It stops only those changes that break the Constitution’s core character.

Phase 4: Evolution through landmark cases (1975 onwards)

After Kesavananda (1973), the doctrine did not remain a theory. It was repeatedly used in major political and constitutional crises.

1) Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975)

Context: During the Emergency period, the 39th Constitutional Amendment attempted to place the election of certain high offices (including Prime Minister) beyond judicial review.

What the Court held:

• Free and fair elections are part of basic structure.
• Judicial review and rule of law are part of basic structure.
• So the amendment that tried to block courts from examining election disputes was struck down (to the extent it violated basic structure).

Why it is landmark: It showed that basic structure is not symbolic. It can stop even powerful political moves that threaten democracy.

2) Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980)

Context: The 42nd Amendment (1976), often called the “mini-Constitution,” tried to:

• Make Parliament’s amending power almost unlimited.
• Reduce the power of courts to review amendments.
• Give Directive Principles very wide priority over Fundamental Rights.

What the Court held:

• Limited amending power itself is part of basic structure.
• Judicial review is part of basic structure.
• Harmony/balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of basic structure.

Why Minerva Mills is a “must-write” case in Mains: It clearly states that Parliament cannot convert a limited Constitution into an unlimited one by amendment.

3) Waman Rao v Union of India (1981)

Context: Many laws were being put into the Ninth Schedule to protect them from court challenges.

Important ruling: The Court introduced a cut-off date linked to Kesavananda:

• Constitutional amendments and Ninth Schedule insertions after 24 April 1973 can be tested on the basis of basic structure.

Why it matters: It connected basic structure with Ninth Schedule immunity.

4) S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994)

Context: This case is famous for President’s Rule and Centre-State relations.

Basic structure contribution:

• Secularism is part of basic structure.
• Federalism is part of basic structure.
• President’s Rule is not beyond judicial review.

UPSC value: It helps you link basic structure with real governance issues like misuse of Article 356 and communal politics.

5) L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997)

Context: Tribunals were created and, in some cases, laws tried to reduce the role of High Courts.

What the Court held:

• Judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is part of basic structure.
• Parliament cannot remove the High Courts’ and Supreme Court’s core power of judicial review through tribunal arrangements.

Why it matters: This is a clear statement that courts are a permanent constitutional check.

6) I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

Context: The Ninth Schedule (Article 31B) was often used like a “safe locker” to protect laws from Fundamental Rights challenges.

Big ruling (easy to write):

• Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are not automatically safe.
• If such a law violates basic structure (especially core Fundamental Rights and judicial review), courts can strike it down.

Why I.R. Coelho is landmark: It prevents misuse of Ninth Schedule as a shortcut to bypass rights and courts.

7) NJAC Case (2015) – Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India

Context: Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment and a law to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to appoint judges. This was meant to replace the collegium system.

What the Court held (in simple terms):

• Independence of judiciary is part of basic structure.
• If the new appointments system damages judicial independence, it violates basic structure.
• The NJAC framework was struck down for violating basic structure (as per the majority view).

UPSC angle: This is a modern example that basic structure is still active and affects current constitutional debates.

Landmark Cases Summary Table (Quick Revision)

Basic Structure vs Parliamentary Sovereignty (UPSC-ready comparison)

India is not like the UK. In the UK, Parliament is supreme. In India, the Constitution is supreme.

Basic Structure and Ninth Schedule (Very important for Prelims)

Ninth Schedule was created to protect certain laws (mainly land reforms) from being challenged in courts for violating Fundamental Rights.

Many governments later used it for other purposes too. The big fear was:

“Can Parliament put any law into the Ninth Schedule and make it untouchable forever?”

Answer after I.R. Coelho (2007): No.

• If a law is added to Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973, courts can test it.
• If it violates basic structure, it can be struck down.

Simple memory line: Ninth Schedule is not a “license to violate basic structure.”

Can Parliament still make major changes after Basic Structure?

Yes. Parliament can make big reforms as long as the core identity remains intact.

Examples of major but generally accepted constitutional changes (for understanding):

• Creation of new states and changes in Centre-State arrangements through constitutional routes.
• Expansion of local self-government (73rd and 74th Amendments) strengthening democracy.
• Changes in property rights (right to property removed as Fundamental Right) while keeping rule of law and judicial review intact.

Core idea: The doctrine is not anti-change. It is anti-destruction.

Common criticisms of Basic Structure Doctrine

• “Judicial overreach” argument: Critics say judges are not elected, so they should not limit Parliament’s will.
• No fixed list: Because basic structure is not a closed list, some say it creates uncertainty.
• Democratic legitimacy debate: If Parliament represents people, why should courts stop amendments?

Strong arguments in support

• Protects democracy from temporary majorities: An elected government can still become authoritarian if unchecked.
• Protects rights and rule of law: Prevents removal of judicial review and free elections.
• Maintains constitutional identity: India stays a constitutional democracy, not just a majoritarian system.

Real-life relevance: Where do you “feel” basic structure in India?

• Emergency period lessons: The experience of 1975–77 showed why constitutional limits matter.
• Federal tensions: Centre-State disputes and misuse of President’s Rule brought federalism into focus (S.R. Bommai).
• Judicial independence debates: Appointment mechanisms and tribunal reforms often raise basic structure issues.
• Rights vs state power: When governments attempt shortcuts to avoid judicial scrutiny, basic structure becomes the constitutional checkpoint.

Way Forward (Balanced, Mains-friendly)

• Clarity through consistent reasoning: Courts should explain clearly why a particular feature is part of basic structure and how the amendment damages it.
• Respect between institutions: Parliament and judiciary should avoid ego clashes and focus on constitutional goals.
• Use as a shield, not a weapon: Basic structure should protect democracy and constitutionalism, not become a routine political argument.
• Strengthen constitutional culture: Ultimately, constitutional morality and democratic habits are the strongest protection.

Exam-ready conclusion (Write this style in Mains)

The Basic Structure Doctrine, born in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), is India’s constitutional safety mechanism. It ensures that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 remains wide but not unlimited. Through landmark rulings like Minerva Mills (1980), S.R. Bommai (1994), L. Chandra Kumar (1997), I.R. Coelho (2007), and the NJAC case (2015), the Supreme Court has used this doctrine to preserve the Constitution’s identity—democracy, rule of law, federalism, secularism, judicial review, and independence of the judiciary. In short, it allows India to evolve through amendments, but prevents the Constitution from being rewritten into something unrecognisable.

MCQs (Prelims Practice) with Explanations

1. Which case is known as the origin of the Basic Structure Doctrine?

   • A) Golaknath (1967)
   • B) Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
   • C) Minerva Mills (1980)
   • D) I.R. Coelho (2007)

   Answer: B

   Explanation: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established that Parliament can amend but cannot destroy basic structure.

2. Which statement best describes the Basic Structure Doctrine?

   • A) Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under any circumstance
   • B) Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution including its core identity
   • C) Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure
   • D) Supreme Court can amend the Constitution when Parliament fails

   Answer: C

   Explanation: The doctrine allows amendments but prevents destruction of constitutional identity.

3. Golaknath (1967) held that:

   • A) Parliament has unlimited amending power
   • B) Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament
   • C) Ninth Schedule laws are always immune
   • D) Directive Principles are superior to Fundamental Rights in all cases

   Answer: B

   Explanation: Golaknath restricted Parliament from amending Fundamental Rights (later modified by Kesavananda).

4. Minerva Mills (1980) is most directly associated with:

   • A) Free and fair elections as basic structure
   • B) Limited amending power and judicial review as basic structure
   • C) Anti-defection law validity
   • D) Governor’s discretionary powers

   Answer: B

   Explanation: Minerva Mills struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment and affirmed limited amending power and judicial review.

5. The cut-off date often used for Ninth Schedule scrutiny under basic structure is linked to:

   • A) 26 January 1950
   • B) 15 August 1947
   • C) 24 April 1973
   • D) 1 July 1991

   Answer: C

   Explanation: Post-Kesavananda (24 April 1973) insertions into the Ninth Schedule can be tested on basic structure grounds.

6. I.R. Coelho (2007) primarily held that:

   • A) All Ninth Schedule laws are valid forever
   • B) Ninth Schedule laws after the cut-off date can be judicially reviewed if they violate basic structure
   • C) Fundamental Rights are absolute
   • D) Parliament cannot amend Article 368

   Answer: B

   Explanation: Coelho prevents misuse of Ninth Schedule to bypass basic structure.

7. L. Chandra Kumar (1997) is most famous for stating that:

   • A) Secularism is basic structure
   • B) Judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is basic structure
   • C) Free elections are basic structure
   • D) Property right is basic structure

   Answer: B

   Explanation: It protected the core judicial review powers of Supreme Court and High Courts.

8. S.R. Bommai (1994) strengthened which basic structure ideas?

   • A) Secularism and federalism
   • B) Abolition of Fundamental Rights
   • C) Unlimited President’s Rule
   • D) Supremacy of Parliament over Constitution

   Answer: A

   Explanation: Bommai is a key case for secularism, federalism, and limits on Article 356 misuse.

9. The NJAC case (2015) is closely linked with which basic structure element?

   • A) Right to property
   • B) Independence of judiciary
   • C) Single-party rule
   • D) Abolition of judicial review

   Answer: B

   Explanation: The Court struck down NJAC on the reasoning that it damaged judicial independence (a basic feature).

10. Which of the following is correct?

    • A) Basic structure is a closed list written in Article 368
    • B) Basic structure applies mainly to ordinary laws, not amendments
    • C) Basic structure is judicially evolved and mainly used to test constitutional amendments
    • D) Basic structure means Parliament cannot amend Directive Principles

    Answer: C

    Explanation: It is judge-made and primarily limits constitutional amendments under Article 368.