Day 15 – Q. 5. The Basic Structure doctrine acts as both a limitation on parliamentary sovereignty and a guarantor of constitutional continuity. Critically examine the relevance of this doctrine in contemporary India with reference to recent constitutional amendments and judicial pronouncements. (250words, 15 marks)

Q. 5. The Basic Structure doctrine acts as both a limitation on parliamentary sovereignty and a guarantor of constitutional continuity. Critically examine the relevance of this doctrine in contemporary India with reference to recent constitutional amendments and judicial pronouncements. (250words, 15 marks)

Introduction 

The Basic Structure doctrine, propounded in the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) case, protects core  constitutional values like rule of law and judicial review from amendment, ensuring a balance  between constitutional flexibility and preserving its essential identity. 

Body

As a Check on Unrestrained Power 

1. Restrains unlimited amending power: Parliament cannot destroy foundational values. Example: Minerva Mills (1980) – Struck down 42nd Amendment for violating basic structure.
2. Preserves judicial review: Even constitutional amendments can be reviewed by courts. Example: Waman Rao (1981) – Reaffirmed judicial review as part of basic structure.
3. Checks majoritarianism: Prevents brute majorities from overriding constitutional morality. Example: NJAC Case (2015) – NJAC struck down to protect judicial independence.
4. Guards against constitutional subversion: Shields democratic institutions from dismantling. Example: Post-Emergency phase – Doctrine invoked to uphold democracy.

As a Guarantor of Constitutional Continuity 

1. Upholds the spirit of the Constitution – Preserves its soul beyond the text. Example: I.R. Coelho (2007) – Ninth Schedule laws subject to basic structure.
2. Promotes constitutional resilience – Protects essential principles from damage. Example: NJAC Case (2015) – Secured judiciary’s independence. 
3. Maintains balance among organs – Stops power concentration in any one organ. Example: S.R. Bommai (1994) – Reaffirmed federalism and democratic governance.
4. Guides constitutional interpretation – Serves as a reference point for courts. Example: NJAC Case – Called the “North Star” by Justice R.F. Nariman. 

Relevance in Contemporary India: Judicial Pronouncements & Amendments

1. NJAC struck down to protect judiciary: Judicial appointments were kept within the judiciary  to preserve separation of powers. Example: In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the 99th  Amendment and NJAC Act were invalidated.

2. Article 370 abrogation raised federal concerns: The special status of Jammu & Kashmir raised  concerns regarding basic structure principles like democracy and federalism. Example: In In Re Article 370 (2023), the Court upheld the abrogation, but federal implications  were hotly debated.

3. Electoral bonds violated transparency: Opaque funding was held unconstitutional for  undermining electoral transparency. Example: In ADR v. Union of India (2024), the Court struck down the scheme for hurting free and  fair elections.

4. Delhi Ordinance case upheld state powers: Central overreach on services was struck down to  preserve federal balance. Example: In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court upheld the  elected government’s control over administrative services.

5. Pepsi Foods case upheld fairness in taxation: Arbitrary taxation actions were invalidated  under the principle of fairness and judicial review. Example: In CIT v. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. (2020), rule of law was upheld as part of basic structure.

6. SEBC Amendment reinforced state autonomy: The constitutional power of states in  maintaining their own OBC list was preserved. Example: In the 105th Constitutional Amendment case (2021), federal structure was reaffirmed.

Limitations of the Doctrine

1. Lacks textual basis: The Constitution does not explicitly mention the term “basic structure,”  leading to criticism of judicial creativity.
2. Subjective application: The scope of the doctrine is not clearly defined, leaving it open to  varying judicial interpretation. 
3. Tensions with Parliament: Frequent invocation may undermine legislative supremacy and  lead to institutional conflict. 

Conclusion

The doctrine is rightly called the “North Star of constitutional interpretation”—a guiding light  that must be handled with care to preserve constitutional identity without inviting judicial  overreach or legislative excess.