BASIC STRUCTURE

Basic Structure Doctrine is part of Indian Constitutional Law. It provides a bulwark against amendments that might undermine the essential nature of our Constitution. Although not expressly stated in the Constitution, it has been inferred from its language and established by decisions of the Supreme Court.

EVOLUTION

KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE (1973)

The Supreme Court in this case, which is also considered the most rudimentary one for propounding of Basic Structure Doctrine, was testing validity of 24th Amendment Act that deleted "Right to Property" from list Articles stated as Fundamental Rights.

According to the Supreme Court, Parliament can amend Constitution but it should not alter its basic structure.

Landmark Ruling: The Court held any amendment which "takes away or abridges" one of those elements so as to weaken it must be struck down under the basic structure doctrine even if premises changes legislation. But the details of that "basic structure" were a bit on the vague side.

DEFINING STRUCTURE OF THE COMMITTEE: MINERVA MILLS CASE (1980)

This case, re-examined the 42nd Amendment Act that made a number of alterations in constitution including empowering the parliament to amend any fundamental right.

However, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court propounded a very controversial concept called "The Basic Structure" and it held that amending power under Art 368 to amend even Fundamental rights is subject to limitation by The basic structure.

Case in Brief: Reinforced the basic structure doctrine and reaffirmed that Parliament cannot bring about changes to essential features of the Constitution through amendments.

WAMAN RAO CASE (1981): BROADENING THE DOCTRINE

In this case, a State law that reserved seats in private educational institutions for scheduled castes and tribes was challenged.

Supreme Court not only upheld the reservation policy but it led to a development in equality principle and emphasized on Basic Structure.

This case revealed the use of this doctrine as much by The Constitution and also social justice provisions.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE DOCTRINE: S R BOMMAI CASE 1994

This case was triggered by a political crisis in the state of Karnataka with the Governor sacking an elected Government.

The Supreme Court, reaffirming the Basic Structure doctrine held that federalism is among essentials features of basic structure.

This case illustrated why the doctrine is critical to preserving a federal system in which states' rights and responsibilities are not trampled upon.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND CHALLENGES:

As new challenges arise The Basic Structure Doctrine keeps changing.

It has also further been developed through cases involving electoral reforms, judicial independence and the power of judges.

This has led to debates and allegations of vagueness and judicial excess in the application of the doctrine.

IMPORTANCE :

1. Protects the Constitution's Core Values: It acts as a safeguard against amendments that seek to alter the fundamental features of the Constitution, ensuring its stability and continuity. The doctrine prevents Parliament from undermining the very principles that underpin the Indian democracy.
   
2. Guarantees Fundamental Rights: It ensures that the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution cannot be easily taken away by amendments. This safeguards individual liberties and protects citizens from arbitrary state actions.
   
3. Preserves Federalism: It safeguards the balance of power between the Centre and the States, preventing one from encroaching upon the other's autonomy. This helps maintain a healthy federal system.
   
4. Ensures Democratic Principles: It protects the principles of democracy, including the rule of law, separation of powers, free and fair elections, and judicial independence. This ensures a functioning democracy and prevents erosion of its fundamental tenets.
   
5. Promotes Judicial Review: It empowers the judiciary to act as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that the government remains accountable and upholds constitutional values. This helps maintain the checks and balances within the system.
   
   

CRITICISMS:

1. Vagueness and Uncertainty: The lack of a clear and exhaustive list of what constitutes the "Basic Structure" can lead to subjectivity and inconsistency in judicial pronouncements. This vagueness can create confusion and legal uncertainty.
   
2. Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the doctrine grants the judiciary excessive power, allowing them to impose their own interpretations on the Constitution. This can potentially undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and lead to judicial activism.
   
3. Limits Parliament's Power: The doctrine restricts the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, even in areas where changes may be necessary to address evolving societal needs. This can hinder the Constitution's ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
   
4. Potential for Abuse: The doctrine's broad interpretation leaves it open to abuse, potentially leading to judges imposing their personal views on the Constitution. This could undermine the democratic process and lead to arbitrary decisions.
   
5. Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process regarding the "Basic Structure" lacks transparency and accountability. This raises concerns about the judicial process and the potential for bias.