1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973) is perhaps the most significant constitutional decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court of India. This landmark judgment established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which became a foundational principle in the Indian constitutional law. The case addressed the conflict between the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the preservation of its core values.
Facts of the Case
The case was initiated by Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious sect in Kerala, who challenged the Kerala government’s attempt to enforce land reform laws that adversely affected the administration of the religious institution. The challenge was based on the assertion that these laws violated the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, specifically the right to property (which was a fundamental right until the 44th Amendment, 1978). The case also raised questions about the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
At the heart of the case was whether Parliament could amend the Constitution in a manner that would alter its “basic structure.” The petitioners argued that fundamental rights and the secular nature of the Constitution were part of the Constitution’s essential identity, and therefore, could not be altered by any constitutional amendment.
The Key Question
The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether Parliament had the unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 or whether there were limitations to such power, particularly with regard to preserving the Constitution’s basic features.
The Judgment
In a 13-judge bench ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a split decision, with the majority of the judges agreeing on one crucial principle: Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter its ‘basic structure’. The judgment upheld the basic structure doctrine, which means that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its fundamental principles.
Justice Hans Raj Khanna wrote the majority opinion, which laid down that the basic structure of the Constitution is inviolable, and any amendment that violates this basic structure is unconstitutional. While the Court did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the “basic structure,” it identified key features such as:
Democracy,Secularism,Judicial Review,Separation of Powers,Federalism
The Court ruled that the power of amendment under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot be used to amend the Constitution in a way that destroys or alters its essential features. This judgment marked a significant departure from earlier views that had allowed more flexible interpretation regarding Parliament’s amendment powers.
Significance of the Case
Limitation on Amendments: The Kesavananda Bharati case marked the first time the Court placed a limitation on the amending power of Parliament. Prior to this, the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) [1]case had suggested that fundamental rights could not be amended, but it was in Kesavananda that the basic structure doctrine was formally established, ensuring that even Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution could not be used to alter its foundational principles.
Doctrine of Basic Structure: The most lasting impact of the judgment was the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has been used in subsequent cases to ensure that the Constitution’s core values are maintained despite political or legislative changes. The Court emphasized that the basic structure could not be altered, even through the process of constitutional amendments.
Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Judicial Review: The ruling also reinforced the role of judicial review in maintaining the integrity of the Constitution. While Parliament has significant powers, the Court underscored its own role in reviewing constitutional amendments to ensure that they do not violate the basic structure.
Expansion of Fundamental Rights: The decision in Kesavananda Bharati also had an indirect impact on the interpretation of fundamental rights. By highlighting the primacy of certain features of the Constitution, the judgment protected the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III and ensured that these rights could not be undermined by the state through amendments.
Precedential Impact: The Kesavananda Bharati case became a cornerstone for future judgments that involved constitutional amendments and the protection of fundamental rights. The doctrine has been cited in cases like Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994),[2] and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), among others.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Court did not provide a specific list of what constitutes the basic structure, but it emphasized that the Constitution should be understood in its entirety, and amendments that affect its fundamental principles would be struck down.
The decision made it clear that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited, and it could not alter the Constitution’s fundamental principles, regardless of the political majority in Parliament.
The judgment also reflected the Court’s commitment to constitutionalism and the protection of rights and democratic values, ensuring that India’s constitutional identity would remain intact despite potential changes in political leadership.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) remains one of the most important and influential decisions in the history of the Supreme Court of India. By establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court placed a fundamental check on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. This doctrine has become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, ensuring that the Constitution’s essential values are preserved and protected against any arbitrary changes. The judgment reinforced the role of the judiciary in guarding constitutional principles and balancing the power of the legislature with the need for protecting India’s democratic structure.
2. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
The case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) is a significant landmark in the evolution of India’s constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in relation to the Basic Structure Doctrine. It is one of the pivotal judgments wherein the Supreme Court reaffirmed the primacy of the Basic Structure Doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and emphasized the balance between the powers of the legislature and the protection of fundamental rights.
Facts of the Case
The Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India case arose from the constitutional validity of the 42nd Amendment (1976), which introduced significant changes to the Constitution. The petitioners, Minerva Mills Ltd., challenged the validity of two provisions of the 42nd Amendment, which they believed would infringe upon their fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment inserted a new Article 31C into the Constitution, which provided that laws enacted to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) under Article 39(b) and 39(c) would not be subject to judicial review, even if they violated fundamental rights.
Section 55 of the same amendment attempted to amend Article 368 to limit the power of judicial review concerning amendments made to the Constitution, thereby reducing the ability of the courts to scrutinize amendments in light of fundamental rights.
The petitioners argued that these provisions, particularly Article 31C, severely compromised the protection of fundamental rights and violated the basic structure of the Constitution. They contended that the amendment allowed Parliament to bypass judicial scrutiny by making certain laws immune to fundamental rights challenges, which they believed undermined the very foundation of the Constitution’s democratic structure.
The Judgment
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, which had inserted Article 31C to shield certain laws from judicial review. The Court, however, upheld the 42nd Amendment in other respects but emphasized the importance of maintaining the balance between the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights.
The Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine from the Kesavananda Bharati case and clarified that Parliament cannot use its amending power to abrogate or diminish fundamental rights in a manner that alters the basic structure of the Constitution.
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, delivering the majority opinion, emphasized that:
Parliament’s amending power is not unlimited. Even though Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot change its basic structure.
The amendment that provided for laws made to implement the DPSPs being beyond judicial scrutiny would alter the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court held that fundamental rights and DPSPs should exist in a harmonious relationship, and no provision should make one more important than the other.
The Supremacy of Judicial Review was maintained, asserting that the judiciary has a role in determining whether laws made by Parliament violate the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly where they impact fundamental rights.
Significance of the Case
Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights: The case reaffirmed the fundamental role of judicial review in preserving the Constitution’s basic structure. The 42nd Amendment tried to curtail judicial scrutiny of laws passed in furtherance of DPSPs, but the Court struck this down, reinforcing the idea that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered.
Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights: The judgment struck a balance between Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights. The Court held that while the Directive Principles are important for guiding government policy, they must not override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, as these rights form the core of India’s democratic system.
Parliament’s Power to Amend: While Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot use this power to destroy or alter the Constitution’s basic structure. This judgment strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine and clarified its application to constitutional amendments, particularly with respect to the 42nd Amendment.
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: The case reflected the doctrine of harmonious construction, where the Court attempted to reconcile the often conflicting ideals of Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights. The Court emphasized that both have a role in India’s constitutional framework and cannot be seen in opposition to each other.
Reaffirmation of Basic Structure Doctrine: This case reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine, which was crucial in the case of Kesavananda Bharati (1973). The Court made it clear that no amendment could alter the core features of the Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, judicial review, and fundamental rights.
Key Observations
Article 31C of the 42nd Amendment, which attempted to exempt certain laws from judicial review, was found to violate the basic structure of the Constitution. By making laws implementing the DPSPs immune to judicial scrutiny, the amendment jeopardized the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Judicial Review plays an essential role in ensuring that the Constitution’s fundamental principles are upheld. The Court reaffirmed that even the amending power of Parliament must adhere to the limits set by the basic structure of the Constitution.
Fundamental Rights cannot be overridden by the Directive Principles alone. Both must coexist within the constitutional framework, and any attempt to override fundamental rights in favor of the DPSPs would be unconstitutional.
The Minerva Mills case (1980) is a key decision in Indian constitutional law as it strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine and reinforced the idea that no amendment could infringe upon the Constitution’s core values. The judgment also emphasized the need for a balance between fundamental rights and directive principles while reiterating the central role of judicial review in safeguarding the Constitution’s basic structure. This case became instrumental in ensuring that the Constitution remains flexible but also rooted in its foundational principles, preventing any arbitrary changes that could jeopardize its democratic framework.
3. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
The case of Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) is another landmark judgment in the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine. This case dealt with the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment (1976), and it contributed to the continuing development and clarification of the scope and application of the Basic Structure Doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
Facts of the Case
The petitioners in the case challenged the validity of the 42nd Amendment (1976), specifically targeting the 43rd Amendment and the 44th Amendment, which introduced significant changes to the Constitution. The challenge was primarily based on the argument that these amendments violated the basic structure of the Constitution, especially with respect to the fundamental rights of citizens.
The petitioners contended that Article 31B (which was introduced by the 42nd Amendment) and certain constitutional amendments affecting the Property Rights violated the Basic Structure Doctrine, which the Supreme Court had emphasized in Kesavananda Bharati.
The key issue before the Court was whether the 42nd Amendment, specifically Article 31B, which placed certain laws immune from judicial review, could withstand scrutiny under the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Judgment
The Supreme Court in Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) affirmed the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, particularly its emphasis on the Basic Structure Doctrine, and clarified the application of this doctrine to constitutional amendments. The Court also dealt with the issue of judicial review of laws that were placed outside the purview of judicial scrutiny by Article 31B.
Affirmation of the Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court reiterated that the Basic Structure Doctrine, as established in Kesavananda Bharati, was a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution. Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, but it could not alter or destroy its basic structure.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Court held that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution were an essential feature of the Constitution’s basic structure. Any constitutional amendment or law that violated or sought to bypass these rights would be subject to scrutiny under the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Effect of the 42nd Amendment: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 42nd Amendment but ruled that Article 31B, which provided immunity to certain laws from judicial review, was subject to the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court did not find the inclusion of specific laws in Article 31B to be inherently unconstitutional, but the Court clarified that the basic structure of the Constitution must always be preserved, even in the face of such amendments.
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: One of the significant aspects of this case was the adoption of the prospective overruling approach. The Court held that the 42nd Amendment would not apply retrospectively to laws enacted before its passage. The judgment set a precedent for dealing with retroactive application of constitutional amendments.
Laws Listed in the 9th Schedule: The Waman Rao case also dealt with the constitutionality of laws placed in the 9th Schedule (which is the list of laws that are not subject to judicial review). The Court ruled that laws placed in the 9th Schedule after the 42nd Amendment (1976) would be subject to judicial review if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
Key Observations
Parliament’s Power to Amend: The Waman Rao case further clarified that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute and cannot be used to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
Importance of Judicial Review: The case reaffirmed the importance of judicial review in ensuring that any amendments or laws passed by Parliament adhere to the Constitution’s basic structure. Even if laws are passed to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy, they cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny if they conflict with fundamental rights.
Protection of Property Rights: The Court reaffirmed the position that property rights (under Article 31 before its amendment) are an essential component of fundamental rights. Any attempt to modify or violate these rights would be contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution.
9th Schedule and Judicial Review: The Court clarified that while laws placed in the 9th Schedule could be immune from judicial review under Article 31B, such immunity would not extend to laws that altered or undermined the basic structure of the Constitution. In essence, the basic structure of the Constitution would prevail over the 9th Schedule’s provisions.
Historical Context and Evolution: The judgment in Waman Rao built upon the reasoning in Kesavananda Bharati and further solidified the idea that fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution must be protected from arbitrary amendments. The judgment acted as a critical step in the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence, maintaining the democratic framework and preventing any amendments that could erode constitutional safeguards.
Significance of the Case
Strengthening the Basic Structure Doctrine: This case reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and made it clear that constitutional amendments that alter the core principles of the Constitution, particularly fundamental rights, would be struck down.
Interpretation of Judicial Review: The Waman Rao case confirmed that judicial review of constitutional amendments is essential to uphold the integrity of the Constitution. Even laws that are made to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Clarification on the 9th Schedule: This case clarified that the 9th Schedule could not be used as a blanket shield to prevent judicial review. The basic structure would always prevail, and laws inserted into the 9th Schedule could be subject to judicial scrutiny if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) case is one of the most important decisions in the development of India’s constitutional law. It not only reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine but also clarified the relationship between judicial review, fundamental rights, and constitutional amendments. The judgment emphasized that constitutional amendments should not undermine the core principles of the Constitution, such as democracy, justice, secularism, and the rule of law. The Court’s insistence on maintaining a balance between Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights continues to be an important aspect of constitutional interpretation in India.
4. Other Key Judgments and the Court’s Role
Apart from the landmark cases discussed earlier, numerous other judgments have contributed to the evolution and clarification of the Basic Structure Doctrine. These judgments have played a crucial role in shaping the interpretation of the Indian Constitution and establishing the role of the Supreme Court in preserving the fundamental tenets of India’s constitutional framework.
- Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
This case arose from the challenge to the election of Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The case became significant due to the Court’s involvement in examining the balance between democracy and constitutional values.
Judgment: The Supreme Court in this case did not directly deal with the Basic Structure Doctrine, but it laid the groundwork for judicial intervention in matters where the core principles of the Constitution were at stake. It was one of the earlier cases that set the stage for the later development of judicial review in constitutional matters.
Contribution to Basic Structure: The judgment emphasized the need for the preservation of democratic principles, which became a cornerstone for the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and other subsequent cases.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
This case dealt with the challenge to the constitutionality of laws included in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, particularly after the 42nd Amendment (1976). The case became significant for its application of the Basic Structure Doctrine to examine laws placed in the 9th Schedule.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that any law included in the 9th Schedule after 1973 could be subjected to judicial review if it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court specifically referred to the Kesavananda Bharati case and its interpretation of the basic structure.
Contribution to Basic Structure: The Court ruled that the immunity granted by the 9th Schedule could not be used to bypass judicial review if it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. This judgment reiterated the importance of judicial review and fundamental rights in maintaining the basic structure.
- N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994)
This case examined the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, especially concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and State legislatures. The Supreme Court focused on the extent to which the basic structure could be altered by amendments.
Judgment: The Court reaffirmed the Kesavananda Bharati judgment and held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution could not be used to alter the basic structure. It was also determined that the distribution of powers between the Union and the States could not be changed through an amendment if it disrupted the basic structure of federalism.
Contribution to Basic Structure: This judgment expanded on the federal structure as part of the basic structure and reinforced that federalism is a core feature of the Constitution, which cannot be altered by amendment.
- The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015)
The NJAC Case, formally known as Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, examined the constitutional validity of the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to replace the Judges Appointment Process under the Collegium System with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Judgment: The Supreme Court declared the 99th Amendment unconstitutional, stating that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court held that the independence of the judiciary was an essential part of the basic structure and that the proposed NJAC system did not adequately protect judicial independence.
Contribution to Basic Structure: The NJAC Case emphasized the independence of the judiciary as a critical component of the basic structure and clarified that any amendment affecting judicial independence would be contrary to the Constitution’s fundamental values.
- Indian Democracy and Secularism as Core Features of Basic Structure
While not a single judgment, the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that democracy, secularism, and republicanism are key features of the basic structure. In cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982), the Court emphasized that the core values of democracy and secularism must remain unaltered.
Judgment: The Court reaffirmed that democracy is the bedrock of India’s constitutional identity and that any amendment that undermines democratic principles cannot stand.
Contribution to Basic Structure: These cases helped to fortify the idea that certain constitutional principles, such as democracy, secularism, and federalism, form the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and cannot be altered or diluted by amendments.
The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting and preserving the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that certain core principles of the Indian Constitution are protected from any attempts at alteration through constitutional amendments. Through its decisions, the Court has defined the contours of judicial review, reaffirmed the importance of fundamental rights, democracy, and secularism, and maintained a balance between Parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional stability. These judgments collectively underscore the Court’s crucial function as the guardian of the Constitution and its basic structure.
[1] Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
[2] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1