The basic structure doctrine has reconciled parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy in India. In the light of landmark judgments, discuss.
Subtopic: Polity · Basic Structure & Constitutional Amendments
How to structure your answer
Introduction: Define basic structure as a judicial doctrine read into Article 368 in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) to limit Parliament's amending power.
Body: Three dimensions — (i) origin from Golak Nath (1967) through Kesavananda (1973) to Minerva Mills (1980); (ii) elements identified so far — federalism, secularism, judicial review, free and fair elections, rule of law, separation of powers; (iii) tensions — NJAC strike-down (2015), the unelected character of the bench versus an elected Parliament. Note that the doctrine itself is not in the text.
Way forward / Conclusion: The doctrine survives because it is invoked sparingly; institutional restraint, not textual expansion, is what keeps it credible.
Written within the word limit
133 words · target 150 words · 9 min
Introduction: The basic structure doctrine, read into Article 368 by the 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973, 7:6 majority), holds that Parliament's amending power cannot alter the Constitution's identity.
Body: Three dimensions illuminate the reconciliation. First, doctrinal origin — Golak Nath (1967) was overruled in Kesavananda (1973), and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment. Second, identified elements — federalism and secularism in S.R. Bommai (1994), Ninth Schedule scrutiny post-1973 in I.R. Coelho (2007), judicial independence in the NJAC verdict (SC AoR v. UoI, 2015), and free elections recognised in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975). Third, the tension — an unelected bench voiding amendments passed by an elected Parliament.
Conclusion: The doctrine endures because it is invoked sparingly; institutional restraint, not textual expansion, keeps the reconciliation credible.
What an examiner expects to see
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — 13-judge bench, 7:6 majority recognised basic structure
- Article 368 grants amending power; basic structure is a judicially read limit
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) struck down 42nd Amendment clauses 4 and 5 to Article 368
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) added federalism and secularism as basic features
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) extended basic-structure scrutiny to Ninth Schedule laws post-1973
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act for violating judicial independence
- Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) was overruled on the amending-power question by Kesavananda
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — NJAC case
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)