Here's all you need to know about basic structure of Indian Constitution

Out of five judges on Supreme Court bench, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and J B Pardiwala agreed that the EWS amendment does not violate the 'basic structure of the Constitution'

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 103rd amendment to the Constitution introducing a 10 per cent reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in admissions to educational institutions and government jobs, on Monday, November 7.

Out of the five judges on the bench, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and J B Pardiwala agreed that the EWS amendment does not violate the 'basic structure of the Constitution'. The other two judges, Chief Justice of India U U Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat dissented.

“It is an instrument not only for the inclusion of socially and educationally backward classes to the mainstream of the society but also for the inclusion of any class or section so disadvantaged as to be answering the definition of a weaker section. In this background, reservation singularly on the economic background does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the constitution,” Justice Maheshwari said.

What is the Basic Structure of Constitution?

The Supreme Court of India derives its authority for judicial review from the doctrine of 'Basic structure of the Constitution'. In simple words, the concept of basic structure limits Parliament’s power to introduce drastic amendments that may affect the core values of the Indian Constitution.

The basic structure doctrine came into being in the 1973 landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in the Keshavananda Bharati case.

Background

In 1970, the hereditary head of Edneer Hindu 'Matha' in the Kasaragod district of Kerala, Keshavanabda Bharti moved to court to challenge the state government's two land reform laws introduced to restrict the management of religious properties. The Constitutional Bench in this case ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. However, the court did not define the term ‘basic structure’, and listed only a few principles like federalism, secularism, and democracy as its components. 

Over the years, the Supreme Court through its various judgements has shaped the concept of 'Basic structure of Constitution'.

Evolution of the doctrine of basic structure

The Supreme Court, since independence, has time and again reformed and revised its stance on parliament's power to amend the constitution. 

For example, the apex court in the Shankari Prasad case (1951) upheld the absolute power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It did the same in the Sajjan Singh case (1965).

In both these cases, the court ruled that the term “law” in Article 13 must be interpreted as "rules or regulations" made in the exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments under Article 368. In simple words, the Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution including the Fundamental Rights.

Article 368 of the constitution defines the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and states the procedure to amend the Indian constitution.

Article 13(2) of the Indian constitution states, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part (Part-III) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void."

However, in the 1967 Golaknath case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

The Court referring to Article 13, observed that an amendment made under Article 368 is "law" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right from Part III of the Indian constitution, it shall be void.

To surpass the Golaknath judgment constraints, the Indira Gandhi government made major amendments to the Constitution. The government enacted the 24th amendment act which introduced a provision to Article 368 of the Constitution, which said that Parliament has the power to take away any of the fundamental rights.

The Keshavnanda Bharti case challenged the four amendments (24, 25, 26 and 29) brought by the government. The SC overruled the Golaknath case judgement and upheld the validity of the 24th amendment act. The court opined that the Parliament is empowered to take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights in Part III, until and unless the changes do not alter the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution.

Thus, this landmark judgement meant that every provision of the Constitution could be amended but these amendments can be subjected to judicial review to ascertain that the basic structure of the Constitution remains intact.

Components of Basic structure

Over the years, the 'basic structure' of the Constitution has been defined to include, features like the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, independent judiciary, federalism, sovereign democratic republic, welfare state, parliamentary system of government, and principle of free and fair elections, and so on.

Historic Significance

The Indira Gandhi government, in 1976 enacted the 42nd Amendment Act that declared that there is no limitation to the constituent power of Parliament under article 368. The amendment, which was also called the "mini-constitution" for introducing wide-ranging changes to the constitution barred the courts from questioning constitutional amendments.

However, in the Minerva Mills Ltd & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors case, the SC invalidated this amendment by observing that the Parliament cannot take away the power to ‘judicial review’ as it is a part of the ‘basic structure of the doctrine’

In the S R Bommai case of 1994, the apex court, upheld the dismissal of BJP governments by the President of India following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, sighting a threat to secularism by these governments.