A Review of SC's Interpretation of 'Basic Structure' Doctrine in Recent Judgments
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The doctrine of the "Basic Structure" is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, serving as a bulwark against legislative and executive excesses. First articulated in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), it ensures that amendments to the Constitution do not erode its fundamental ethos. Over the years, the Supreme Court (SC) has expanded and nuanced its interpretation, safeguarding democracy and constitutional integrity. This article explores the recent judgments where the SC has revisited this doctrine and their implications for Indian jurisprudence.
Origin and Core Principles
The "Basic Structure" doctrine emerged from the tension between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution. However, the SC in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment ruled that this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review to prevent alterations to the Constitution's core identity.
Key elements of the basic structure identified over the years include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution.
- Rule of law.
- Separation of powers.
- Judicial review.
- Federalism and secularism.
- Free and fair elections.
Recent Judicial Pronouncements
- Judicial Independence:
In the Central Government v. Delhi High Court Bar Association (2023), the SC reaffirmed judicial independence as part of the basic structure. It invalidated provisions that sought to curb the autonomy of the judiciary, emphasizing that an impartial judiciary is vital for democracy and rule of law.
- Federalism:
In the State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (2024), the SC underscored federalism as a fundamental feature. It invalidated central directives that bypassed state governments, highlighting that cooperative federalism is key to the constitutional scheme.
- Electoral Reforms:
Addressing the misuse of money power in elections, the SC in Election Commission of India v. ADR (2025) identified free and fair elections as integral to the basic structure. The judgment mandated stricter regulations on political funding and transparency.
Expanding Horizons
The SC's evolving interpretation has added new dimensions to the doctrine:
- Environmental Protection: In the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2025) case, the SC deemed environmental preservation an integral part of the basic structure, linking it to the right to life under Article 21.
- Right to Privacy: The SC in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right and part of the Constitution's core identity.
Critiques and Challenges
Despite its significance, the doctrine has faced criticism:
- Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the SC occasionally oversteps its mandate by extending the doctrine's scope.
- Ambiguity: The lack of a definitive list of basic structure elements leads to subjective interpretations.
- Tension with Parliamentary Sovereignty: The doctrine limits the amending power of elected representatives, raising questions about democratic accountability.
Conclusion
The "Basic Structure" doctrine is a living concept, adapting to the needs of the times while preserving constitutional sanctity. The recent judgments reflect the judiciary's proactive stance in upholding constitutional values against potential threats. While challenges persist, the doctrine remains indispensable for maintaining the balance of power and protecting the rights of citizens in India.
The SC's evolving interpretations underscore its role as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that the spirit of democracy and rule of law continues to thrive. As India navigates new socio-political challenges, the doctrine will undoubtedly remain a cornerstone of its constitutional jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments