The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution has a similar significance to how important judges are to the operation of the courts and how significant the bare acts are to attorneys. Although the phrase "fundamental structure" is never defined, the constitution itself effectively expresses the concept. The Indian Constitution is regarded as the most important document for the country as a whole, and the clauses it contains are in no way to be neglected. Therefore, this doctrine has to be introduced in order to retain and protect their essence.
The main idea behind it is that Parliament should not be able to introduce new laws that would affect and change the basic structure of the constitution. As a result, the doctrine states that the parliament's unlimited power to amend the constitution is subject to only one restriction: it must not dilute or violate the constitution's basic structure. Alternatively, the effects of the amendment should not be derogatory or disruptive to the basic structure.
This doctrine, in essence, protects the spirit of the constitution. Article 368 of the Constitution discusses this doctrine, stating,
“Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or
repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article”.
The framers of the constitution were foresighted enough to predict that if the constitution is left to be very flexible, it will be almost like playing games of the party that remains in power for the time being, and if it is made too rigid, it will be difficult to instil changes in accordance with changing times.
So they took a middle path, and keeping the value of freedom in mind, they drafted a constitution in which every citizen was equal, with no gender, caste, or religion-based discrimination, and they provided us with an independent judiciary to ensure it.
Cases from the Indian Judiciary
The constitution empowers the judiciary to investigate laws and determine their constitutional validity through the process of judicial review, as well as to determine the rights of every citizen. This is precisely why the Basic structure doctrine was established. The origins of the basic structure doctrine can be found in the German Constitution, which was amended after the Nazi regime to protect some fundamental laws.
There have been occasions in the history of the Indian judiciary when this power has been invoked. These are what are known as midnight cases (a case which has to be remembered even when someone asks for it at midnight). The first case in this vein is Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union of India, in which, in order to abolish the practise of the Zamindari system, a few states such as Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh enacted their own Zamindari Act, under which vast holdings of land with the zamindars were to be redistributed amongst the tenants. (Isn't it a bit much to exercise power?).
The Zamindars who were harmed by this legislation petitioned the court, claiming that such an act violated their fundamental rights, specifically the right to property (which is not a fundamental right now). The Supreme Court in the end concluded that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 and not the Fundamental rights. And so the petition was rejected with cost.
Next on the list is one of the court's most landmark decisions, Golaknath vs. State of Punjab, in which Golaknath (a wealthy man) owned 500 acres of land, but under the Punjab Security Land Tenures Act 1953, the state government allowed an individual to own no more than 30 acres of land, with the remainder being considered surplus. Golaknath was outraged and filed a petition for a violation of his fundamental right to own and acquire property (again, not a fundamental right now).
The Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision and went on to establish that the Parliament cannot amend any part of the constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, and that in order to remove all the Fundamental Rights, the Parliament must amend the Constitution.
A Case that Helped to Save Indian Democracy:
Now comes the case of Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala. The case that saved Indian democracy, gave a new derivation to the fundamental structure doctrine, and also had the largest bench of judges. That is, 13 Judges!
Lt. Kesavananda Bharti filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Kerela Land Reforms Legislations of 1970, which limited the management of religious property under Article 26. It was primarily concerned with the right to manage property owned for religious purposes without interference from the government. The question here was whether the parliament's power could be used to revoke an individual's fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court ruled that no part of the Constitution could be amended (including fundamental rights). The Basic Structure of the Constitution could not be altered in any way. Parliament has the authority only to amend it, not to rewrite it or to repeal any provision.
This provision was revived in 1971, when Indira Gandhi swept majority seats in Rai Bareily, Uttar Pradesh, but was later called to the court due to a petition filed by Raj Narain, who claimed that Indira Gandhi won due to election malpractices. The matter was heard by the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in favour of the petitioner and barred Mrs. Gandhi from running for office for the next six years. She left, enraged by this.
Meanwhile, the president declared a state of emergency in the country due to the failure of constitutional machinery (the real reason being the Allahabad high court judgement) and also passed the 39th Amendment Act 1971, which removed the courts' authority to rule on election matters.
The Supreme Court later issued its decision, citing the Kesavananda Bharti case to establish once again that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the constitution in any circumstance. As a result, democracy was saved once more until 1975, when the next major case occurred.
Case of Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
The Minerva mills, a textile industry in Karnataka, was suspected by the central government of being a sick company. To ensure that they appointed a committee to draught a full report for them, and if they did, the mills could be taken over by the National Textile Corporation without any judicial review as provided by the 39th amendment. However, following the 42nd amendment, which occurred following the previous case, the petitioner may challenge this step.
The Supreme Court overturned clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 on the grounds that they destroyed the essence of the constitution's basic structure.Our constitution's framers made a special provision to provide quality to every citizen of the country, particularly in economically supporting them by providing employment, as stated in Article 16. (4).
In 1979, the government appointed a commission to investigate all socially and educationally backward classes and report back to them. As a result, the commission recognised 3743 such classes and recommended 27 percent reservation for their advancement. However, the government changed and the plan could not be implemented. When the former government returned to power, it made the reservations available only to address the outrage of anti-reservation movements later.
Later, the reservation percentage was reduced to 37 percent for the socially and economically disadvantaged class, and the case was heard by the Supreme Court, which issued a notice to the government asking for the reasons for extending the reservation percentage. The government provided no explanation. As a result, the Supreme Court rendered one of its most laudable decisions by separating the "creamy layer" and determining that "backwardness" can be determined on the basis of caste rather than economic status. As a result, the Federal structure, India's unity and integrity, secularism, socialism, social justice, and judicial review were all reaffirmed as fundamental features of the Constitution.
Indra Sawhney's case was the name given to this epic case. This was followed by the Nagraj case, in which the Supreme Court upheld the legislature's decision to extend reservations for SCs and STs, including promotions with the three riders. It directed the state to provide proof of the benefits received by the backward class as a result of these reservations. According to experts, this judgement failed to recognise the discrimination that these classes have faced for centuries and also overturned the decision made in the previous case.
In this manner, the Supreme Court decided a few other cases, such as the Waman Rao case, in which the doctrine of basic structure was used again to examine Article 31-B, and it drew a line of demarcation and established that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment made o the constitution. And all amendments made to the 9th schedule were valid.
Then there was the Bommai case, which was another landmark judgement discussing provisions under Article 356 of the constitution that impacted state-center relations by limiting the misuse of the said article, which gave power to the proclamation of emergency and dissolution of Legislative assemblies. This decision put an end to the misuse or overuse of the aforementioned article.
Conclusion
It is clear by now that there is no solid rule for preserving the basic feature of the constitution, despite the fact that it is the most important feature of it and the function of the judiciary. Judges may disagree on occasion, but they all agree that it is critical to preserve the basic framework of the constitution.
The constitution's democratic and federal features add to its significance. And losing its essence would render the constitution a defective document incapable of safeguarding the fundamental characteristics of the world's largest democracy.
Post a Comment