Doctrine evolved by InidiAN Juiciary Detailed Explanation with Case Law
🔹 Doctrines Evolved by Indian Judiciary: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has evolved various constitutional and legal doctrines to interpret the Constitution, balance powers, protect fundamental rights, and maintain rule of law. These doctrines have become cornerstones of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
1. Doctrine of Basic Structure
Explanation:
The doctrine holds that certain features of the Constitution (e.g., democracy, secularism, federalism, separation of powers) form its "basic structure" and cannot be altered or destroyed even by constitutional amendments.
Key Case:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Facts:
Challenge to the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments that limited fundamental rights and parliamentary power.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend the "basic structure" of the Constitution. It upheld most amendments but struck down unlimited amending power.
Significance:
This doctrine limits Parliament’s power and protects the Constitution’s core principles.
2. Doctrine of Separation of Powers
Explanation:
This doctrine divides government functions among Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary to prevent concentration of power and ensure checks and balances.
Key Case:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
Facts:
President’s Rule imposed in several states was challenged.
Held:
The Court emphasized that separation of powers is part of the basic structure. The judiciary can review executive action under Article 356.
Significance:
Reaffirmed judicial review over executive to maintain balance of power.
3. Doctrine of Proportionality
Explanation:
Judicial principle ensuring that any restriction on fundamental rights must be proportionate to the legitimate aim sought.
Key Case:
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196
Facts:
Challenged legislative restrictions on property rights.
Held:
The Court held that restrictions must not be arbitrary or excessive — they must be proportionate.
Significance:
Evolved as a standard to test reasonableness of administrative and legislative action.
4. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
Explanation:
If a public authority makes a clear promise or consistent past practice, affected individuals have a "legitimate expectation" to be treated accordingly, protecting against arbitrary change.
Key Case:
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1809
Facts:
A company relied on government’s past conduct for its business operations.
Held:
The Court protected the company’s legitimate expectation, requiring fairness from public authorities.
Significance:
Strengthens procedural fairness and predictability in administrative action.
5. Doctrine of Eclipse
Explanation:
If a law is inconsistent with the Constitution, it becomes "eclipsed" but not void ab initio. It can revive if the inconsistency is removed.
Key Case:
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 781
Facts:
Challenged law infringing fundamental rights.
Held:
The Court held the law was eclipsed and not void, can revive if inconsistent part is removed.
Significance:
Allows legislative flexibility and preserves laws till unconstitutional part is amended.
6. Doctrine of Severability
Explanation:
If part of a law is unconstitutional, that part can be severed and the rest can remain valid if it can function independently.
Key Case:
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628
Facts:
Part of law challenged as violating fundamental rights.
Held:
The Court severed unconstitutional portions but upheld the rest.
Significance:
Prevents entire laws from being struck down due to partial invalidity.
🔹 Summary Table of Doctrines and Cases
| Doctrine | Key Case & Year | Core Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Structure | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Parliament can’t alter Constitution’s core features |
| Separation of Powers | S.R. Bommai (1994) | Checks & balances among branches |
| Proportionality | State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952) | Restrictions must be reasonable & proportionate |
| Legitimate Expectation | Union of India v. Cynamide (1987) | Fairness in public authority’s promises |
| Eclipse | Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) | Laws inconsistent with Constitution are eclipsed |
| Severability | R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla (1957) | Unconstitutional parts can be severed, rest upheld |
🔹 Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has evolved these doctrines to protect constitutional supremacy, fundamental rights, and administrative fairness. These doctrines ensure that the Constitution remains a living document capable of responding to changing times, while safeguarding democracy, rule of law, and justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments