THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE: SAFEGUARDING CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY IN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

AUTHOR: TUFAIL AHMED, HERITAGE LAW COLLEGE , CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT

The article examines whether the Parliament of India can amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution and the limitations of such powers. When the Constitution was adopted in 1950, it aimed to address the socio-political needs of the time but acknowledged the necessity for amendments to adapt to evolving societal needs. This led to landmark changes, including reservation laws and land reforms, sparking debates over the supremacy of the judiciary (Article 13) and the Parliament (Article 368).

Through an analysis of key constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings—such as Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Golaknath v. State of Punjab, and the historic Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala—the article explores the tussle between Parliament’s power to amend and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding Fundamental Rights.

The concept of the Basic Structure Doctrine, introduced in the Kesavananda Bharati case, is central to the discussion. This doctrine asserts that while the Constitution can be amended, its core principles and essential features cannot be altered, ensuring a balance between flexibility and stability. The article concludes by emphasizing the dynamic nature of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which evolves with societal needs, and underscores the Constitution’s ultimate aim of promoting the welfare and rights of the people.

KEYWORDS

Fundamental Rights, Amendment, Indian Constitution, Basic Structure Doctrine, Article 13, Article 368, Constitutional Amendment.

INTRODUCTION

The question that Fundamental Rights can be amended and what is the limit of the powers of the Parliament as the main reason for the amendment in the Constitution is because when the Constitution first came in the year 1950 so it was particularly based on that social, political and needs of the society as the Constitution itself states that with the changing time whenever their need is to add new rights the Constitution can be amended and in this way the Reservation Law and many other laws came into existence with the changing time The Basic Structure Doctrine is related to mainly two articles, Article 13 and Article 368 of the Indian Constitution Article 13 of the Indian Constitution defines itself as the protector of Fundamental Rights as it states Supreme Court can declare any law null and void if it violates any Fundamental Rights On the other hand, Article 368 of the Indian Constitution gives Parliament the right to amend the Indian Constitution So, from this the main conflict starts for the Supremacy, Judiciary as per Article 13 or Parliament as per Article 368 of the Indian Constitution In order to find out the answer for the above, the Basic Structure Doctrine was developed.

CAN THE FUNDAMENTA RIGHTS BE AMENDED OR THE POWER OF THE PARLIAMENT CAN BE RESTRICTED ?

Whether the Parliament, using its power, can bring amendments in the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution that are enshrined in Part 3, Art. 12-35, or it can totally remove it from the Indian Constitution, or Art. 13 limits the power to the Parliament to do so. As whenever the amendments took place, whether it be the 1st, 17th, 24th, 39th or 42nd Amendment, this question was raised, and the answer for the same was given in some important judgments by the Supreme Court. The 1st Constitution Amendment Act, which dealt with the Art. 13 of the Indian Constitution, which states about the rights to property, which defines that every citizen of India will have a fundamental right to property. When India got its freedom from the Crown rules, there was inequality in land ownership in a huge amount, as well as the cultivators or the farmers had no security. Thereafter, the abolition of the zamindari system was a revolutionary step in India, and for this reform, the Indian National Congress made a committee called the Agrarian Reform Committee, under the chairmanship of J. C. Kumarappa. The objective of the land reform policy was focused on two things. Firstly, to increase agricultural production in India, and secondly, to provide equity of status and opportunity to rural population, that is to remove social injustice going on. In order to tackle the problems, there was a fixed ceiling limit of land holding, which meant a person can purchase the number of lands within a certain limit, which was the ceiling on the land. In the year 1951, the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act was passed, which inserted Art. 31A, Art. 31B and the 9th Schedule. So, with the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, which introduced the new articles and introduced new restrictions, its impact was such that it violated the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution, as its powers were reduced. For this, the Amendment Act was challenged in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951.

SHANKARI PRASAD VS UNION OF INDIA

As the Zamindari system introduced by the British government was itself a slavery system, as a result of which the Indian farmers were exploited of their rights to the largest extent possible. After the freedom, many states tried to abolish the Zamindari system. The state governments of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh introduced the Zamindari Abolition Act, which tried to redistribute the land of the Zamindars between and among the common public. As a result, the Zamindars challenged this case in the court, stating that this act violated their fundamental rights to property, stated in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Now, the High Courts of some of the states regarded it as constitutional, and on the other hand, some of the High Courts of the other states regarded it as non-constitutional.

The legal Issues that were raised was that, will a constitutional amendment come under the meaning of the law given in Article 13(2).

Decision

In this case, a five-judge constitutional bench was set up with the decision and the court stated that the Parliament can amend the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution using Article 368, which means that the constitutional amendment, even if it violates them,

as well as the term law, given in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, talks about the ordinarily law, but constitutional amendment is not an ordinary law.

In the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the facts of the case was that this case deals with the amending powers of the Parliament. In the year 1964, Rajasthan government passed the Land Reform Act and later on the Parliament introduced the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, through which it expanded the scope of the state as it was mentioned in Article 31A.

The entries of the Land Reform Act from 21 to 64 was added in the 9th Schedule of the Union Constitution. After this amendment, the government’s power to acquire the land was increased as well as extended, as because the laws introduced in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution cannot be challenged in the court. Many land laws challenged the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, and they filed a writ petition using the Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, stating that this constitutional amendment violates their fundamental rights of right to property, as well as the Parliament cannot use Article 368 against the fundamental rights of its citizens. The legal issues that were raised before the Hon. Supreme Court were same issues as it was raised in the case of Sankari Prasad v. Union of India, that the Parliament can amend the fundamental rights using the Article 368 or not, as well as will a constitutional amendment come under the meaning of the law as given in Article 13, sub-clause 2 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court gave the decision was given by a five-constitutional bench and the judgment was given in the ratio of 3 to 2. It was held by the Supreme Court that the decision made In the Shankari Prasad v. Union of India case is appropriate and is suitable. As per Article 368, the Parliament has enough power to amend the Fundamental Rights and Article 13 will not be applied on the Constitutional Amendment Act. In this case, Chief Justice Gajendragadkar stated that while framing the constitution, if the framers of the Indian constitution wanted to safeguard the fundamental rights from the subject of amendments, then there would have been express provisions would have been mentioned in the constitution. So it can be believed at the outset that the fundamental rights can be amended as per Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, but Chief Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudhalkar contradicted this view and they referred this judgment to a bigger bench for further clarification.

Golaknath vs State of Punjab The facts of the case Henry and William Golaknath were brothers and they had land of about 500 acres in the state of Jalandhar and Punjab in the year 1953 when the government passed the law named Punjab Security and Land Tenure as 1953. According to this law, the government declared that an individual can only hold up to 30 acres of land each and the rest of the land is surplus, as per that law. Now both the brothers Henry and William Golaknath can only acquire 60 acres of land and which reduce the 88% of the land from 500 acres. So, this law was challenged by filing a writ petition in the Honorable Supreme Court as it was believed by them that this law violated their fundamental and constitutional rights of right to property.

Legal issues that were raised before this case was that does the new law violate the fundamental rights of the Golaknath brothers and can the parliament amend the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution.

A constitutional bench of 11 judges was set up in order to give the decision in the Goloknath case versus the state of Punjab with a majority of 6-5. It was stated by the court that as per Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, the powers given to the Parliament are not absolute, they are subject to certain restrictions and judicial review. As if the Parliament uses its power to bring an amendment act, then on that Article 13 will be applicable. As this judgment rejected the judgment made in the prior cases of the Shankari Prasad and the Sajjan Singh by stating that the Parliament does not have absolute power as well as it cannot violate the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution. At last, Article 13 will apply to the Constitutional Amendment Act. In order to conclude, the Supreme Court stated that the Parliament cannot bring any law that violates the fundamental rights as it was the decision which was in opposite of both of the earlier cases. It favoured Article 13 of the Constitution stating it as supreme.

Impact of the Golaknath judgment was that it reduced the power of the Parliament. So, in order to retain its power, the Parliament introduced the 24th Amendment Act as this amendment act itself amended the root cause i.e. Article 13 and Article 368. In Article 13, sub-clause 4 was included and in Article 368, clause 3 is included and some other minor changes were made. It stated that the parliament can amend any part of the constitution including the fundamental rights. As well as in Article 368 brings any amendment act then it will not be covered under Article 13. In this way, the 24th Amendment Act completely reversed the Golaknath decision.The 25th Constitutional Amendment, which reduced the property right, as well as the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, removed the Privy Purse and the 29th Amendment Act, which brought the Land Reform Act.

KESAVANANDA BHARTI VS STATE OF KERALA

The Kesavananda Bharati v.s. the State of Kerala which is also known as the Fundamental Right case. This case challenged the All Rest Amendment and the Golaknath case with a Constitutional bench of 13 judges. The same question arose before the Supreme Court that what is the scope of the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and can the Parliament remove all the Fundamental Rights from the Indian Constitution? The Supreme Court stated that the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution and these powers were present earlier before the Article 368. It just cleared out the explicit of the powers of the Parliament. It declared that the 24th Constitutional Amendment is valid. But it gave a balanced approach in case of the Fundamental Rights and gave the doctrine of the basic structure. It stated that the basic features of the Constitution and the characteristics of the Constitution cannot be amendment. It made a list of the features which fall under the basic structures. But it was not an exhaustive list. The elements can be added as per the needs of the society. The intention should be relied on the framers of the Indian Constitution.

CONCLUSION

It is to be mentioned at the outset that the basic structure is a concept which is dynamic as it keeps on changing with the needs of the society. It cannot be clarified that which article is supreme as of Article 13 or Article 368. The main aim of the Indian Constitution is to establish the concept of the welfare state, that is, the welfare of the people. The Constitution aims to promote the living of the people and in order to form a welfare society. It is a crucial principle of the Indian Constitution which safeguards the fundamental principles as well as helps in maintaining a balance between the branches of the government which safeguards the rights of the individuals.