See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369092350

Basic Structure Doctrine of Indian Constitution

Preprint in SSRN Electronic Journal · March 2023

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4377908

CITATIONS READS

0 4,148

1 author:

Gourab Das
University of Burdwan
5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gourab Das on 09 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Basic Structure Doctrine of Indian Constitution
Gourab Das
Department of Electrical Engineering
University Institute of Technology, The University of Burdwan
Burdwan, West Bengal, India
Email : gourab@ieee.org
Abstract : The date of 24th April is so extensively as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, and
highlighted in the area of democracy and the political Republic nation. Nonetheless, before exploring the main
infrastructure of India. On the same date, in 1973, the issue, it is necessary to comprehend the importance of a
Supreme Court of India gave the landmark judgement in
constitution in a society[2].
the history of the Indian Judiciary i,e the Kesavananda
Reasons of Making a Constitution
Bharati v. State of Kerala. Although Kesavananda Bharati,
In any society, there are individuals with diverse
the head of the Hindu Monastery, Edneer Mutt had lost the
case, the judiciary gave the people of India the most backgrounds, beliefs, professions, ages, and economic
supremest law i,e the basic structure doctrine which not only status. These individuals have to coexist in the society
protects the fundamental rights of the citizens but also and for that to happen, there must be cooperation among
protects the sovereignty and integrity of this country. In them. Cooperation requires a set of basic rules that are
this paper, we will get to know how the political history of enforceable and known to all. Without these rules,
our country eventually developed by which this landmark individuals would be insecure. This is where a
judgement was created. Also on the same date, in 1993, the
constitution comes in. A constitution is a set of rules that
Panchayati Raj system was created which is the backbone
sets out the fundamental principles, structures,
of Indian Democracy at the local level.
procedures, and powers of government organisations, and
a list of primary rights and directive principles for
Keyword : Fundamental Rights, Directive Principle of State
Policy, Judicial Review, Seperation of Power, Democracy. citizens[3].
In a democratic country like India, United Kingdom,
South Africa, the people have the right to elect the head
Definition of Constitution
of the government and the members of the legislature
A constitution is a fundamental document that establishes
who will enact the laws. The constitution not only elects
a framework of basic rules to enable coordination among
the members of the government but also restricts their
members of a society. The Indian Constitution serves as
power to prevent arbitrary laws that violate the dignity
the highest law of the land, delineating the core political
and rights of the people.
principles, structures, procedures, and powers of
Constitutional supremacy is evident in countries like
government institutions, as well as an exhaustive list of
South Africa where the government created several acts
fundamental rights and directive principles for its
to address the issue of racial discrimination. This
citizens. The primary objective of the framers of the
illustrates that the members of government need to
Indian constitution was to establish Constitutional
consider the aspirations of society. The question may
Supremacy, rather than Parliamentary Supremacy[1]. The
arise about countries like China, North Korea, and Iran
preamble of the Indian constitution upholds the principles
having a constitution but low democracy index. However,
of Justice, Equality, and Liberty, affirming India's status
the absence of constitutional supremacy in these
countries allows the government to make arbitrary laws
that can undermine the fundamental rights
individuals[4].
Historical Background
During the mediaeval period, India and China
collectively accounted for 51% of the world's GDP. India
was rich in raw materials and spices, which were highly
sought after in Europe[5]. However, the Arab blockade
hindered trade with India after the decline of the
Byzantine Empire in the 7th century. Despite this
obstacle, Spanish and Portuguese navigators discovered a
way to India, leading to the discovery of the Americas as
a byproduct. Portugal's arrival in Calicut in 1498 sparked
a wave of European exploration in India, which was
followed by colonisation attempts[6]. The British East
India Company arrived in India in 1608, initially as a
trading entity but later established an administrative
regime due to several socio-political circumstances and
their exploitative practices. After the Battle of Buxar in
1765, the British East India Company gained the
"Diwani" rights in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha, paving the
way for them to assume a dictatorial role that took away
the rights of the natives[7]. The British colonial
government's primary aim was to exploit and profit from
India through torture, genocide, and exploitation. The
British Crown took over India after the Indian Rebellion
of 1857, but administrative policies to exploit Indian
citizens persisted. The British tried to break the unity
between Hindus and Muslims diplomatically to resist the
nationalist and unifying sentiments that arose after the
Sepoy Mutiny. This misgovernance is not only limited to
India but is also evident in other parts of the world. The
Israel-Palestine conflict is an example of this kind of
misgovernance that leads to favourable economic and
political outcomes for some nations[8].
The demand for a constitution for India dates back to the
early 20th century. The Indian National Congress, which
was founded in 1885, initially focused on achieving
political representation for Indians in the colonial
government. However, the idea of a constitution for India
gained momentum in the 1920s, and the Congress
adopted the concept of “Swaraj” or self-rule as its
of objective.
In 1928, the Congress demanded dominion status for
India, which would mean self-government within the
British Empire. The British government responded with
the appointment of a committee under the leadership of
Sir John Simon, which recommended limited reforms and
no timeline for India's self-government. This was rejected
by the Congress, which launched the Civil Disobedience
Movement in 1930, demanding complete independence
from British rule[9].
The Round Table Conferences were held in London in
1930, 1931, and 1932 to discuss constitutional reforms
for India. The Congress boycotted the first conference,
but its leaders participated in the later conferences.
However, no agreement was reached, and the British
government passed the Government of India Act 1935,
which introduced limited provincial autonomy and
separate electorates for different communities[10].
The Constituent Assembly was formed in 1946, and its
members were elected by the provincial assemblies. The
Muslim League boycotted the elections, and the Congress
emerged as the dominant party. The Assembly met for the
first time in December 1946 and elected Dr. Rajendra
Prasad as its President[11].
The Indian Independence Act was passed in July 1947,
which mentioned the partition of the Indian Subcontinent
and the creation of two independent and autonomous
countries, India and Pakistan[13].
In conclusion, the making of the Indian Constitution
before independence was a long and complex process
that spanned several decades. It was driven by the
aspirations of the Indian people for self-rule and was
marked by significant events such as the Civil
Disobedience Movement and the Round Table
Conferences. The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950,
remains a remarkable achievement in the history of
modern India[14].
With independence, the necessity for a Constitution
became so important to maintain the sovereignty of the
country and democracy of every citizen in a safe hand.
The reason behind mentioning a long descriptive history
about the British Colonial rule is, most of the concepts of
the Indian constitution have reflected the laws in the
British rule. There were a number of provisions and legal
framework of British India which indeed highly
influenced our constitution and polity[15].
Fundamental Rights
The Indian Constitution establishes the Executive,
Legislature, and Judiciary as the pillars of democracy.
With the evolution of media science, the press has
become the fourth pillar of democracy[16]. However, to
ensure that democracies are valid, limitations must be
imposed on the power of the government, and
fundamental rights must be guaranteed to citizens. The
Indian Constitution's Part III lists the fundamental rights
that are derived from the US Constitution. Fundamental
rights provide a comprehensive list of justiciable rights
that are guaranteed by the constitution to all persons
without any discrimination, ensuring a "government of
laws and not of men." This paper discusses the different
categories of fundamental rights and their significance in
protecting individual liberties and promoting democratic
values[17][18].
The Indian Constitution enshrines the principles of
democracy, equality, and justice. The Constitution
establishes the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary as
the three pillars of democracy. With the evolution of
media science, the press has become the fourth pillar of
democracy. However, for a democracy to function
effectively, the power of the government must be
restricted, and citizens must be granted fundamental
rights[19].
Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution: The
Indian Constitution's Part III lists the fundamental rights
that are derived from the US Constitution. The
fundamental rights provide a comprehensive list of
justiciable rights that are guaranteed by the constitution
to all persons without any discrimination, ensuring a
"government of laws and not of men." The fundamental
rights contain the following rights:
● Right to Equality (Articles 14-18): This right
ensures equality before the law and prohibits
discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex,
or place of birth.
● Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22): This right
guarantees freedom of speech, expression,
assembly, association, movement, and
occupation.
● Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24):
This right prohibits trafficking, forced labor, and
child labour.
● Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28):
This right guarantees the freedom of religion, the
right to practise and propagate religion, and the
right to manage religious affairs.
● Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles
29-30): These rights protect the rights of
minorities to conserve their language, culture,
and education.
● Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32):
This right guarantees the right to move the
Supreme Court for the enforcement of
fundamental rights.
Fundamental rights are essential in protecting individual
liberties and promoting democratic values[22][23]. These
rights ensure that citizens can participate freely in the
democratic process without fear of discrimination,
exploitation, or oppression. Fundamental rights also
enable citizens to hold the government accountable for its
actions and provide a legal framework for resolving
disputes.
The Indian Constitution's fundamental rights are a
cornerstone of democracy, ensuring that citizens'
individual liberties are protected and that the government
is held accountable. The fundamental rights provide a
legal framework for resolving disputes and promote
democratic values such as equality, freedom, and justice.
In conclusion, fundamental rights play a crucial role in
promoting and maintaining a healthy democracy[24].
 Directive Principle of the State Policy
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are the
guidelines or principles laid down in Part IV (Articles
36-51) of the Indian Constitution. DPSPs are not legally
enforceable, but they are elementary in the governance of
the country and are considered to be the conscience of the
Constitution[25].
DPSPs are a set of guidelines that the government and the
state should follow while framing policies and passing
laws. These principles aim to promote social and
economic democracy, reduce inequality, and create a just
society. DPSPs also aim to secure for all citizens, social,
economic and political justice, equality of opportunity,
and the promotion of fraternity[26].
DPSPs include provisions for free and compulsory
education for children, securing just and humane
conditions of work, protection of the environment,
promotion of cottage industries, and the provision of
living wages and good working conditions for workers.
DPSPs also aim to protect and preserve India's heritage
and culture, as well as promote scientific temper and
international peace[27].
DPSPs are not justiciable, which means that the courts
cannot enforce them. However, they are rudimentary in
the governance of the country and are a guiding force for
lawmakers and the government. The makers of the
constitution intended DPSPs to be the guiding principles
for the governance of the country and a tool for social
and economic reform[28].
Overall, DPSPs are a reflection of the ideals and values
that the Indian Constitution stands for. They are essential
in creating a just and equitable society, and their
importance cannot be overstated in India's ongoing
journey towards progress and development.
Judiciary and Rights
Judiciary, the third pillar of democracy, is assigned with
the task of protecting the rights of each individual. In any
society, disputes are bound to happen. All such disputes
must be settled by an independent body just like the
referee in football. In countries like India, the referee is
the independent Judicial System of the government. An
independent judiciary means it will be free from the
arbitrary actions of the other additions of the government
and judges must perform their duties without any fear and
pressure[29].
Article 32 and Article 226 give the citizen to restore their
fundamental rights if it got violated by anyhow. Article
32 allows to protect only the Fundamental rights in the
Supreme court whereas Article 226 not only protects the
Fundamental rights but also protects other rights by the
High Courts[30][31]. For this procedure, several kinds of
writs have been filed. Writs fall under a fundamental
right i,e Right to Constitutional Remedies(Article 32).
According to B.R. Ambedkar, this right is the heart and
soul of the constitution. It allows the people to reach the
form of Judiciary incase of any violation of their
individual rights. This is also known as the Writ
Jurisdiction in Judiciary.
Also the independent judiciary of our country has a great
power known as “Judicial Review”. It means the
capability of the Judiciary to appraise the
constitutionality of any law and if found unconstitutional
the law may be deleted by the Judiciary. Interesting fact
is that the term Judicial Review is nowhere mentioned in
the Constitution of India.
Togetherly, the Writs and the Judicial review make the
Judiciary so powerful that it can interpret the constitution
and the laws passed by the legislature. But all of these
powers didn't come into action so easily. It eventually got
developed through a lot of cases and amendments made
by the legislative system,
Amendments of Articles
The Indian constitution is a dynamic document that
provides a framework for governance and safeguards the
rights of citizens. According to Article 368 of the
Constitution, the document can be amended through a
parliamentary process. Since its adoption in 1950, the
Constitution has undergone several amendments that
reflect the changing needs of society and the governance
system. The parliamentary process requires a two-thirds
majority of the members present and voting in each house
of Parliament. However, in cases of amendments to the
federal structure or fundamental rights, the amendment
also requires ratification by at least half of the state
legislatures[31].
Some of the notable amendments to the Constitution
include the 42nd amendment, which was introduced
during the Emergency period and brought significant
changes to the Constitution. The 73rd and 74th
amendments introduced Part IX and IX-A to the
Constitution, which made significant changes in the
structure of local self-government[32]. Recent
amendments include the abrogation of Article 370, which
granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and the
controversial Citizenship Amendment Act [33].
Nevertheless, concerns have been raised about the
amendment process and its potential impact on the
democratic and federal structure of the country. The
Kesavananda Bharati case established the basic structure
doctrine, which limits the amending power of the
Parliament and safeguards the basic structure of the
Constitution.
Post Independence Scenario
Prior to comprehending the state of the art basic structure
doctrine, it is necessary to first review the historical
background of Post-Independent India. The end of the
200-year-old British colonial rule in the Indian
subcontinent occurred on the night of August 14-15, and
power was transferred to the Dominion of India and
Pakistan[34]. The new Dominion of India and
Independent India were led by Lord Mountbatten and
Jawaharlal Nehru, respectively, as the first
Governor-General and Prime Minister. The Constituent
Assembly of India was established in 1946 to write the
constitution. On November 26, 1949, the Constitution of
India was adopted, which came into force on January 26,
1950. January 26 was deliberately chosen because it was
the day on which Purna Swaraj day was observed in
1930[35]. At the time of its enactment, the constitution
contained 8 schedules, 22 parts, and 395 articles, making
it the largest written constitution in the world . The
Constitution of India consists of 495 articles grouped into
25 parts and has 12 schedules. So far, the legislature has
made 105 amendments.
In 1962, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru attempted to
ally with the People's Republic of China. PM Nehru had
great confidence in the Chinese and coined the slogan
"Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai." However, he was unaware that
future catastrophic situations would arise, which occurred
during the 1962 Sino-Indian War, in which India lost a lot
of territory from Aksai Chin (now Ladakh UT). At the
time, the President of India, Dr Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan, dismissed the entire Ministry of Defence.
India also lost the opportunity to secure permanent
membership status in UNSC. PM Nehru was pushed into
PTSD by the false hope, which later became a
psycho-somatic problem in his life. PM Nehru died in
1964, just before the next general election in
India[36][37].
Candidates for election were typically selected based on
seniority in the Indian National Congress (INC), or the
president of INC would nominate someone. At that time,
Morarji Desai was the most senior person in INC, and K.
Kamraj was the INC president. However, for some
reason, K. Kamraj preferred the Nehruvian Socialist to a
right-winger. Later, Lal Bahadur Shashtri became the
second Prime Minister of India[38].
In 1965, the second war between India and Pakistan
erupted. The result of the war was a stalemate, although
many sources claim that India was on the winning side,
and the leadership of PM Shashtri led the Indian Armed
Forces to capture many areas in Pakistan, including
Lahore, temporarily. As a result, the Tashkent Declaration
was signed between India and Pakistan in Uzbekistan,
where the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR)
witnessed the agreement. But on that day, our brave
prime minister, Shashtri Ji, was assassinated by the
conspiracy of Pakistan and the KGB.
The next general election was going to happen in 1966,
and again Morarji Desai was to be nominated as the
candidate. But again, this did not happen. Indira Gandhi
won the 1967 general elections with a reduced majority
and became the third prime minister of India.
In politics, PM Indira Gandhi was commonly referred to
as "Goongi Gudiya" (dumb doll) and had a strained
relationship with members of the Indian National
Congress (INC), particularly Morarji Desai. In order to
gain control and power, she implemented a dictatorship
government during her tenure. This marked the beginning
of her journey from being called a "dumb doll" to being
known as the "Iron Lady."
In 1967, she proposed a 10 Point Program aimed at
eliminating poverty in India[39]. This proposal included
various measures such as nationalising banks and
insurance companies, and eliminating the Privy Purse.
PM Gandhi understood that in order to implement these
measures, she needed a supportive President in office.
The Presidential Election was scheduled for 1969, and
the INC aimed to exert pressure on PM Indira Gandhi.
INC nominated Neelam Sanjeva Reddy, while PM
Gandhi nominated V.V. Giri as the candidate. The
resulting election was the most controversial in Indian
political history, but V.V. Giri was declared the winner.
INC was dissatisfied with PM Indira Gandhi's
misgovernance, leading to her expulsion from the party.
The party was then divided into INC(Organisation) and
INC(Requistionists), with PM Indira Gandhi leading the
latter. INC(R) won the 1971 general election with a total
of 352 seats, while INC(O) secured only 16 seats[40].
During 1971, the situation in East Pakistan worsened
with an increase in genocide and torture. People from
East Pakistan fled to India to save their lives, and PM
Indira Gandhi anticipated the likelihood of a war. India
remained a neutral country, but PM Gandhi recognized
the need for stronger allies to counter the threats posed by
Pakistan and China. With the help of one of her most
trusted officers, PN Haksar(IFS), Indian Ambassador to
USSR, India formed an alliance with the USSR. The third
Indo-Pak war resulted in the Indian Armed Forces'
biggest victory of all time, and Bangladesh was
successfully liberated with the assistance of the USSR
and India. PM Indira Gandhi's popularity skyrocketed,
but this was short-lived.
After re-electing with a huge majority in 1971, she
implemented several policies aimed at socialist and
economic development.She also implemented the Green
Revolution, which brought significant progress in the
field of agriculture. India became self-sufficient in food
grain production, which helped in reducing food scarcity.
She also implemented several measures aimed at
reducing poverty and inequality in the country, such as
the Garibi Hatao campaign.
However, her governance was not without criticism. She
faced opposition from political rivals, who accused her of
authoritarianism and suppressing dissent. The most
significant criticism of her governance was the
imposition of the Emergency in 1975, which suspended
civil liberties and press freedom, and arrested opposition
leaders. Her governance is often criticised for
undermining the principles of democracy and destroying
the soul of the Indian Constitution.
During her tenure, Indira Gandhi took several
controversial decisions that curtailed civil liberties and
weakened democratic institutions. She imposed a state of
emergency in 1975, suspending the fundamental rights of
citizens and granting extraordinary powers to the
government. The media was censored, opposition leaders
were arrested, and dissent was suppressed. The judiciary
was also weakened as several judges were superseded
and the government interfered in their appointments[41].
Indira Gandhi also introduced several constitutional
amendments that were criticised for eroding the basic
structure of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment Act,
1971 was passed to nullify the Supreme Court's decision
in the Golaknath case, which held that the Parliament
could not amend the fundamental rights. The 42nd
Amendment Act, 1976 was described as a
"mini-constitution" as it made significant changes to the
Constitution. It conferred on the Parliament the power to
amend any part of the Constitution, including the
fundamental rights, without any limitations. It also
curtailed the powers of the judiciary and increased the
powers of the executive.
Indira Gandhi's governance was criticised for being
authoritarian and anti-democratic. The discovery of the
basic structure doctrine by the Supreme Court in the
Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 was a major setback to
her attempts to amend the Constitution. The doctrine held
that there were certain basic features of the Constitution
that could not be amended by the Parliament. This was a
significant development as it curbed the Parliament's
power to amend the Constitution and protected the
fundamental rights of citizens.
In conclusion, Indira Gandhi's governance before the
discovery of the basic structure doctrine was marked by
authoritarianism and attempts to erode the basic structure
of the Constitution. Her actions were criticised for
undermining the principles of democracy and destroying
the soul of the Indian Constitution.
In 1984, the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was
assassinated by her own bodyguards. Her son Rajiv
Gandhi became the next Prime Minister of India.
However, his tenure was also marked with political
turmoil, including allegations of corruption in the Bofors
arms deal.
In 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was also assassinated by a suicide
bomber during an election campaign. This led to the
appointment of P. V. Narasimha Rao as the Prime
Minister of India. During his tenure, India went through
major economic reforms and liberalisation, which opened
up the Indian economy to foreign investment and led to
significant economic growth.
In 1998, India conducted its second nuclear test, which
drew international criticism but also demonstrated its
nuclear capabilities as a deterrent against potential
threats. In 1999, the Kargil War broke out between India
and Pakistan, in which India successfully pushed back
Pakistani forces that had infiltrated into Indian territory.
In recent years, India has seen significant economic
growth, becoming one of the fastest-growing major
economies in the world. However, it has also faced
challenges such as corruption, communal tensions, and
regional conflicts.
Overall, the history of India since independence has been
marked by both achievements and challenges, as the
country has struggled to overcome the legacy of
colonialism and build a modern democratic state that can
meet the needs of its diverse population.
Making of the basic structure doctrine
Upon careful examination of the aforementioned facts, it
has become evident that Article 31, which confers the
Right to Property, and Article 39(B)&(C) are in conflict
with each other. During the Nehru Government in 1951,
the first Amendment was passed by the Parliament. This
Amendment transformed Article 31(A) - the Right to
Property, from a fundamental right to a legal provision. In
addition, Article 15(4) was introduced to provide
educational and reservation benefits to the disadvantaged
classes of society, promoting equality. The Amendment
also rendered Article 31(B) non-justiciable, depriving the
Judiciary of the power to review the substance of these
articles[42]. This Amendment was enacted to foster
agrarian reforms and reservations in the context of India's
socio-economic development. As a consequence,
numerous cases were brought before the Supreme Court
of India against the Central and State Governments,
resulting in several landmark verdicts:
● Shankari Prasad vs Union of India, 1951:
Background: In 1950, the Constitution of India
came into effect and with it, the Indian Supreme
Court started functioning. The Constitution
established a federal system with powers divided
between the central government and state
governments. One of the key provisions in the
Constitution was the power of the central
government to amend it.
Issue: In 1951, the government of India passed
the 1st constitutional amendment Act which
allowed the government to impose reasonable
restrictions on the freedom of speech and
expression, and introduced the Ninth Schedule
which was enacted to protect the land reform acts
of any state which are contrary to the
fundamental rights. Shankari Prasad, a
 businessman and member of the Hindu
Mahasabha, challenged the constitutionality of
the amendment. He argued that the power of the
central government to amend the Constitution
violated the fundamental rights of citizens.
Judgement: The case went to the Supreme Court,
where a bench of five judges heard the
arguments. The court upheld the constitutionality
of the First Amendment and rejected Shankari
Prasad's challenge. The court ruled that the
power of the central government to amend the
Constitution was a part of the Constitution itself
and therefore, not subject to challenge under the
fundamental rights provisions[43].
● The State of West Bengal vs Mrs Bela
Banerjee, 1953 :
Background: In 1954, the West Bengal
government passed the West Bengal Estates
Acquisition Act, which sought to acquire
agricultural land from landlords and distribute it
among the landless peasants. Bela Banerjee, a
landowner, challenged the Act on the grounds
that it violated her fundamental rights,
particularly the right to property.
Issue: The main issue in the Bela Banerjee case
was whether the West Bengal Estates Acquisition
Act violated Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the
Indian Constitution. Article 19(1)(f) guaranteed
citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of
property, while Article 31 provided for
compensation in case of acquisition of property
by the state.
Judgement: The Supreme Court, in a 5-2
decision, upheld the constitutionality of the West
Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The court held
that the right to property had fallen under the
Ninth Schedule in which the Judiciary had no
options left but to reject the challenge which was
made by the petitioner. The court also held that
compensation need not be equivalent to the
market value of the property, but only needed to
be reasonable.
After this case, the Government passed the 4th
Constitutional Amendment Act in 1955 and
declared that the state would decide the factor of
compensation[44].
● Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan, 1965:
Background: The Sajjan Singh case was a
landmark case in Indian constitutional history.
The case was brought before the court after the
Indian government abolished the privy purses of
the former Indian rulers in 1971(26th CAA).
Issue: In 1964 when the Parliament passed the
17th Constitutional Amendment Act, which
sought to secure the constitutional validity of
acquisition of land and estates which fall under
the Ninth Schedule. This amendment was
challenged in this case.
Judgement: In its judgement, the Supreme Court
upheld the validity of the 17th CAA and also the
Supreme Court determined that Article 368
grants the Parliament to modify any article in the
Constitution. The Court restated that Article 13
only applies to regular laws and not to
constitutional amendments, whereas Article 368
is exclusively applicable to constitutional law.
The majority verdict held that the Parliament
possesses the power to amend the fundamental
rights of the citizens[45].
● I.C. Golaknath vs State of Punjab, 1967 :
The Golaknath case dealt with the interpretation
of the Constitution and the extent of the
amending power of the parliament. The case is
named after its petitioner, I.C. Golaknath, who
challenged the constitutional validity of the
Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act,
1964.
Background: Before the Golaknath case, the
Parliament of India had passed several
constitutional amendments that brought
significant changes to the constitution of India.
 However, the validity of these amendments was
never challenged in the courts. In 1960, the
Supreme Court ruled in the Sankari Prasad case
that the Parliament has the power to amend any
part of the Constitution, including the
Fundamental Rights, under Article 368 of the
Constitution.
Issue: The main issue in the Golaknath case was
whether the Parliament of India had the power to
amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part
III of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that
the Parliament had no such power and that any
attempt to amend the Fundamental Rights would
violate the foundational element.
Judgement: In a landmark decision, with the
constitutional bench of 11 judges, the Supreme
Court held that the Parliament of India does not
have the power to amend the fundamental rights
enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The
court ruled that the Fundamental Rights are the
important aspects of the Constitution and that any
attempt to amend them would destroy the dignity
of life of the citizens.
This decision led to the enactment of the 24th
Amendment Act, which overruled the Golaknath
case and restored the Parliament's power to
amend any part of the Constitution, including the
Fundamental Rights. However, the concept of
"basic structure" has continued to play an
important role in the interpretation of the
Constitution by the Indian courts.
In conclusion, the Golaknath case was a
significant turning point in the history of Indian
constitutional law. The case also highlighted the
importance of an independent judiciary in
protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens
and upholding the rule of law[46].
● Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala,
1973:
Background: The Kesavananda Bharati case is
one of the most significant and landmark
judgments in the history of the Indian judiciary.
The case was heard in the Supreme Court of
India in 1973 and was a result of a legal dispute
between Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a
Hindu monastery in Kerala, and the State of
Kerala. The case was related to the Kerala
Government's attempts to introduce land reforms
that would have limited the ownership of private
property.
The Constitution of India had been adopted in
1950, and by the 1960s, the Indian government
had introduced various constitutional
amendments. One such amendment was the 24th
Amendment Act of 1971, which aimed to curtail
the powers of the judiciary and the scope of
judicial review. The 24th Amendment Act also
sought to amend Article 368 of the Constitution
to make it clear that Parliament had the power to
amend any part of the Constitution, including the
fundamental rights.
Issue: The main issue in the Kesavananda Bharati
case was whether the Indian Parliament had
unlimited powers to amend the Constitution. The
petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, argued that
Parliament did not have such powers and that the
Constitution had certain basic features or
essential features that could not be amended. The
petitioner further contended that these essential
features constituted the "basic structure" of the
Constitution, and any amendment that sought to
alter these features would be unconstitutional.
The government, on the other hand, argued that
Parliament had plenary powers to amend the
Constitution, and there were no limitations on its
power to do so. The government argued that the
fundamental rights were not part of the basic
structure and were amenable to amendment.
Judgement: The Kesavananda Bharati case was
heard by a constitutional bench of thirteen judges
which is the largest constitutional bench till
now(2022), and the judgement was delivered on
April 24, 1973 which overruled the I.C.
Golaknath vs State of Punjab case. The 7:6
judgement held that the Parliament did have
the power to amend any part of the
Constitution including the fundamental rights
also. But there are certain basic features of the
Constitution that could not be violated. These
features are known as the basic structure
doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
The judges also held that the fundamental rights
are the part of the basic structure of the
Constitution and could not be abrogated or
abridged by the Parliament through its amending
power. The judgement further held that the basic
structure of the Constitution included the
constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, the
democratic system, the constitution's secular
nature and the distinct allocation of powers
among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
The judgement also established the principle of
judicial review, which allowed the judiciary to
strike down any law or amendment that violated
the basic structure of the Constitution. The
judges, however, did not provide an exhaustive
list of the basic features of the Constitution, and
left it open to interpretation in future cases.
The Kesavananda Bharati case had far-reaching
implications on Indian polity and constitutional
law. The judgement curtailed the power of the
Indian Parliament to amend the Constitution, and
ensured that the Constitution could not be altered
in a manner that would damage its basic
structure. The judgement also established the
supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law
in India, and reaffirmed the role of the judiciary
as the guardian of the Constitution.
Conclusion: The Kesavananda Bharati case
remains one of the most significant and
influential cases in the history of the Indian
judiciary. The judgement has ensured that the
Constitution of India is a living and breathing
document that can adapt to changing
circumstances while protecting its essential
features. The basic structure doctrine has played
a crucial role in protecting the fundamental rights
of the citizens, and in ensuring that the rule of
law prevails in India. The judgement has also
been cited by courts and constitutional scholars
around the world as an example of the
importance of an independent judiciary and the
rule of law[47][48][49].
Definition of the basic structure doctrine
Upon reviewing the historical evolution of this doctrine,
we can describe the basic structure doctrine as a legal
principle recognized by the Indian Supreme Court. This
principle identifies the core principles and values of the
Constitution that cannot be modified by the Parliament
through its amending power under Article 368. The basic
structure doctrine was established in the landmark case of
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973. In this
case, the Supreme Court concluded that the Parliament
lacks the authority to alter the essential structure or
framework of the Constitution. The basic structure
doctrine serves as a crucial safeguard against arbitrary
amendments and helps to preserve the essence of the
Constitution[50].
The following are the elements and features of the basic
structure doctrine:
Constitutional Supremacy: The governance of India is
framed by the Indian Constitution, which establishes the
fundamental principles and values that guide the
functioning of the state. The Constitution is supreme, and
its provisions cannot be overridden by any other law.
Separation of Powers: The Indian Constitution
establishes a framework for the separation of powers,
with distinct branches of government including the
legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has
specific responsibilities and authorities, and there are
mechanisms in place to ensure oversight and balance to
maintain their independence.
Federalism: The Indian Constitution establishes a
federal system of government, which allocates powers
between the central government and the state
governments. This provision serves to maintain a balance
of power and fosters regional autonomy.
Rule of Law: The Indian Constitution supports the
principle of the rule of law, which implies that all
individuals are bound by the law, and no one can evade
its provisions. The Constitution establishes an
autonomous judiciary, which plays a crucial role in
upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the rights of
the citizens.
Fundamental Rights: The Indian Constitution ensures
specific fundamental rights to all citizens, including but
not limited to the right to equality, freedom of speech and
expression, and the right to life and liberty. These rights
are a crucial aspect of the Constitution and cannot be
repealed or abolished.
Secularism: The Indian Constitution enshrines the
principle of secularism, which means that the state is
neutral in matters of religion and treats all religions
equally. This feature is crucial to maintaining communal
harmony and ensuring that the state does not favour one
religion over another.
Democracy: The Indian Constitution sets up a
government system based on democracy, enabling people
to exercise their right to participate in the country's
governance through free and fair elections. This
characteristic promotes transparency and accountability
in governance and ensures that the government is
responsible to the people.
Welfare State: The Indian Constitution provides for a
welfare state, where the government is responsible for
ensuring the welfare and development of its citizens. This
feature is essential to promote social justice and reduce
inequalities.
To sum up, the basic structure doctrine in the Indian
Constitution is a crucial protection against capricious
amendments, guaranteeing that the Constitution's core
principles and values are upheld. This doctrine is
essential in preserving the fundamental nature of the
Constitution, promoting constitutionalism, democracy,
and the rule of law.
Executive
The basic structure doctrine is a crucial judicial principle
in the Indian Constitution that states that certain
provisions of the Constitution are so fundamental that
they cannot be amended or abrogated. Its application has
helped preserve the Constitution's integrity and core
principles. The Executive branch in India comprises the
President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Council of
Ministers, and other high-level officials responsible for
daily governance functions. As the highest authority in
this branch, the Prime Minister wields significant power
and can either uphold or undermine constitutional
principles.
The basic structure doctrine can serve as a tool to
improve the Executive organ in India in various ways.
First and foremost, it can hold the Executive accountable
to the Constitution and prevent it from taking actions that
violate fundamental principles. For example, if the
Executive attempts to pass legislation or take actions that
are contrary to the principles of democracy, secularism,
or federalism, the Doctrine can be invoked to strike down
these actions as unconstitutional.
Secondly, the Doctrine can ensure that the Executive
works in the best interests of the people and not personal
or political interests. The Constitution serves the people
of India, and any attempt to subvert this principle is
against the Constitution's core values. By upholding the
Doctrine, the Supreme Court can ensure that the
Executive remains accountable to the people and acts in
their best interests.
Thirdly, the basic structure doctrine can promote
transparency and accountability in the Executive. The
Doctrine holds that the Constitution must evolve to meet
society's changing needs, and the Executive must engage
in open and honest dialogue with the people and other
stakeholders. The Supreme Court can promote
transparency and accountability in the Executive by
upholding the Doctrine.

Finally, the basic structure doctrine can uphold the
principles of justice and equity by promoting the rule of
law. The Doctrine states that the Constitution is the
supreme law of the land and must be respected at all
times. Therefore, the Executive must be guided by the
principles of justice and equity and ensure that all citizens
are treated fairly and equally under the law. The Supreme
Court can promote the rule of law and ensure that the
Executive remains committed to these principles by
upholding the Doctrine[52].
In conclusion, the basic structure doctrine is a powerful
tool for improving the Executive organ in India.
Upholding the Doctrine can promote transparency,
accountability, and the rule of law, ensuring that the
government functions in a manner consistent with the
Constitution's core principles. Therefore, it is essential to
uphold and respect the Doctrine at all times to promote a
healthy and vibrant democracy in India.
Legislature
The basic structure doctrine is a legal principle
established by the Indian Supreme Court, which defines
the fundamental characteristics and principles of the
Constitution that cannot be modified by the Parliament,
even through a constitutional amendment. Its main
purpose is to safeguard the Constitution and maintain the
rule of law. Consequently, it is important to analyse how
this doctrine can be used to improve the legislative body
of the Indian government.
The primary responsibility of the legislative organ of the
Indian government is to develop laws that govern the
nation. The Indian Parliament is the leading legislative
body, composed of two chambers: the Lok Sabha (Lower
House) and the Rajya Sabha (Upper House). Although
the Parliament has the authority to modify the
Constitution, it is subject to specific limitations imposed
by the basic structure doctrine.
The basic structure doctrine establishes several
fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be
changed by the Parliament through constitutional
amendments. These include the supremacy of the
Constitution, the democratic and republican form of
government, the separation of powers, the rule of law, the
fundamental rights, and the independence of the
judiciary. These features form the backbone of the
Constitution and are essential for the proper functioning
of the democratic system.
One way in which the basic structure doctrine can be
utilised to improve the legislative organ of the Indian
government is to ensure that the Parliament develops
laws that respect the basic principles of the Constitution.
As the Parliament is bound by the Constitution, it must
follow its basic features. The basic structure doctrine acts
as a check on the legislative organ by ensuring that the
Parliament does not violate the Constitution or infringe
upon the rights of citizens.
Another way in which the basic structure doctrine can
enhance the legislative body is by ensuring that the
Parliament does not pass laws that contravene
fundamental rights. The Constitution of India protects the
fundamental rights of citizens, and any law that violates
these rights is unconstitutional. The basic structure
doctrine ensures that the Parliament does not pass laws
that undermine the fundamental rights of citizens.
Additionally, the basic structure doctrine guarantees that
the Parliament does not impede the independence of the
judiciary. The judiciary plays an important role in
upholding the rule of law and must remain impartial to
function effectively. The basic structure doctrine ensures
that the Parliament does not pass laws that undermine the
independence of the judiciary.
Moreover, the basic structure doctrine can be used to
prevent the Parliament from passing laws that go against
the federal structure of the Indian Constitution. The
Constitution of India provides for a federal system of
government, with powers divided between the central
government and the state governments. The basic
structure doctrine ensures that the Parliament does not
pass laws that infringe upon the powers of the state
governments.
Finally, the basic structure doctrine also serves to prevent
the Parliament from passing laws that discriminate
against certain groups. The Indian Constitution
guarantees equality before the law and prohibits
discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place
of birth. The basic structure doctrine ensures that the
Parliament does not pass laws that contravene the
principles of equality and non-discrimination.
In conclusion, the basic structure doctrine of the Indian
Constitution can be used to improve the legislative organ
of the Indian government by ensuring that the Parliament
follows the basic principles and features of the
Constitution, does not violate fundamental rights,
maintains the independence of the judiciary, respects the
federal structure of the Constitution, and avoids
discrimination against certain groups[53].
Judiciary
The basic structure doctrine is a legal principle developed
by the Indian judiciary to safeguard the fundamental
principles and values enshrined in the Constitution. It
prevents the amendment or alteration of the Constitution
in a way that would undermine its basic structure, and has
been crucial in preserving the rule of law in India. This
essay explores how the basic structure doctrine can be
utilised as a tool for improving the functioning and
effectiveness of the Judiciary in India.
As one of the three organs of the State in India, the
Judiciary plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law,
protecting individual rights and freedoms, and preventing
the Executive and Legislature from exceeding their
constitutional authority. However, there are numerous
challenges and issues that must be addressed to improve
its functioning.
The basic structure doctrine can be used to enhance the
independence of the Judiciary, which is recognized as a
fundamental feature of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court has relied on this doctrine to strike down attempts
by the other organs of the State to encroach upon the
independence of the Judiciary, such as the transfer of
High Court judges without their consent. The doctrine
can be used to safeguard the independence of the
Judiciary from external interference[54].
Additionally, the basic structure doctrine can be utilised
to enhance the accountability of the Judiciary by ensuring
that it is transparent and responsive to the needs of the
people. The doctrine can prevent the Judiciary from
becoming a law unto itself and subject it to the checks
and balances of the Constitution. It can also ensure that
the Judiciary's decisions are open to scrutiny and review.
Furthermore, the basic structure doctrine recognizes the
importance of equality and non-discrimination as
fundamental features of the Constitution. The doctrine
can be used to promote diversity and inclusivity within
the Judiciary, ensuring that it is representative of the
society it serves. This can be achieved by including
members from different communities, regions, and
backgrounds, ensuring that the Judiciary is sensitive to
the needs and concerns of different segments of society.
Lastly, the basic structure doctrine recognizes the
importance of education and knowledge as fundamental
features of the Constitution. Therefore, it can be utilised
to promote judicial education and capacity building,
ensuring that judges possess the requisite skills and
knowledge to discharge their duties effectively.
In conclusion, the basic structure doctrine can be a
powerful tool for improving the functioning and
effectiveness of the Judiciary in India. It can be utilised to
enhance the independence, accountability, diversity, and
capacity of the Judiciary, and ensure that it upholds the
fundamental principles and values enshrined in the
Constitution.
Evolution of the Doctrine
The development of the basic structure doctrine of the
Indian Constitution was a gradual process that took place
after the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case judgement
in 1973. The following are the key events that
contributed to the evolution of this doctrine:
The Indira Gandhi Case (1975): The Indira Nehru
Gandhi case, which is also referred to as the Election
Case or the Raj Narain Case, marked a pivotal moment in
Indian constitutional history. The case centred around the
1971 General Elections in which Indira Gandhi, the
Prime Minister at the time, ran as a candidate from two
constituencies - Raebareli in Uttar Pradesh and Medak in
Andhra Pradesh. Raj Narain, a politician from Uttar
Pradesh, challenged her election on various grounds,
alleging electoral malpractice, the misuse of government
resources, and the invalidity of her nomination[55].
The case was heard by a division bench of the Allahabad
High Court, which ruled against Indira Gandhi's election
from the Raebareli constituency, declaring it void and
disqualifying her from holding public office for six years.
The court found her guilty of using government resources
for campaigning and violating the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, which prohibits a candidate from
contesting from more than one constituency in a general
election[56].
Indira Gandhi appealed the verdict in the Supreme Court,
which initially granted her a conditional stay on the
Allahabad High Court's decision[57]. However, the
Supreme Court later set aside the stay order and upheld
the verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the famous
'Habeas Corpus case' of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain[58]. The court deemed the use of government
resources for campaigning and Indira Gandhi's
nomination from two constituencies unconstitutional and
invalid, setting a precedent for future cases related to
election malpractices and the misuse of government
resources.
The Supreme Court's decision was perceived as a setback
for Indira Gandhi's government and her personal
credibility, leading to widespread protests and unrest in
the country. Her supporters accused the judiciary of bias
against her, prompting Indira Gandhi to declare a state of
emergency in the country and suspend several
fundamental rights while arresting political opponents
and civil society activists.
The Indira Nehru Gandhi case reinforced the supremacy
of the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary,
establishing the doctrine of basic structure, which
stipulates that certain features of the Constitution cannot
be amended by the Parliament without violating its basic
structure[59].
The Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Minerva Mills
case of 1980 had a significant impact on the
interpretation of the Indian Constitution, particularly with
regard to the basic structure doctrine. This landmark
judgement of the Supreme Court arose out of a challenge
to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, which had
been enacted during the period of Emergency in
India[60].
The petitioner in the case was Minerva Mills Limited, a
textile manufacturing company, which argued that the
provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act violated various
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution,
including the right to property. The company also
contended that the provisions in question were beyond
the amending power of Parliament and were therefore
unconstitutional[61].
The main issue before the court was whether the
provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act, which had
amended various provisions of the Constitution,
including the Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy, were valid under the
Constitution. The court held that certain provisions of the
42nd Amendment Act violated the basic structure
doctrine of the Constitution and were therefore void[62].
The court reaffirmed the concept of the basic structure
doctrine, as laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case,
and held that any attempt to damage or destroy the
foundation of the Basic Structure would be struck down
as unconstitutional. The court also held that the
Fundamental Rights were an integral part of the Basic
Structure, and that any attempt to abrogate or abridge
these rights would be unconstitutional[63].
The court struck down several provisions of the 42nd
Amendment Act, including Article 31C, which provided
that laws giving effect to the Directive Principles of State
Policy could not be challenged on the ground that they
violated the Fundamental Rights. The court held that the
Directive Principles of State Policy could not override the
Fundamental Rights and that any attempt to do so would
be contrary to the scheme of the Constitution[64].
The court also struck down the amendment to Article 368
which sought to expand the amending power of
Parliament and the amendment to Article 19 which
imposed certain restrictions on the right to freedom of
speech and expression[65].
Overall, the Minerva Mills case reinforced the
importance of the basic structure doctrine and its role in
preserving the fundamental values and principles of the
Constitution. It also emphasised the need for a balance
between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
of State Policy, and the importance of ensuring that
neither set of provisions is used to undermine the other.
The Waman Rao Case (1981): The Supreme Court of
India delivered a significant ruling in 1981, known as the
Shankarappa Case or the Waman Rao Case. The case
centred around the constitutionality of certain provisions
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which aimed
to reform land ownership and tenancy laws in the state.
The primary issue was whether the Act infringed on the
right to property as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) of the
Constitution[66].
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act was enacted in 1960 to
eliminate the zamindari system and allocate land to
landless agricultural workers. The Act imposed
restrictions on the transfer and acquisition of agricultural
land and allowed the state government to acquire surplus
land. The Act underwent multiple amendments in
subsequent years to bolster land reform measures.
In 1974, the Karnataka government made another
amendment to the Act, which granted a right of
resumption to former landowners whose land had been
acquired by the government. However, the High Court of
Karnataka ruled this amendment unconstitutional, and the
state government appealed to the Supreme Court[67][68].
Justice P.N. Bhagwati delivered the Supreme Court's
judgement, upholding the constitutional validity of the
amendment. The Court held that the right to property was
not an absolute right but subject to reasonable restrictions
in the public interest. The Court further opined that land
reform measures were necessary for promoting social and
economic justice, and that the state had the authority to
regulate property use for the public's benefit.
The Court also ruled that the amendment did not infringe
on the basic structure of the Constitution. It stated that the
right to property was not a fundamental right and could
be amended by Parliament under Article 368.
Additionally, the Court held that the amendment did not
affect the Constitution's fundamental principles,
including federalism, secularism, democracy, and the rule
of law[69].
The Waman Rao Case is significant for interpreting the
right to property under the Constitution and reasserting
the state's power to regulate property rights in the public
interest. It also clarified the scope and limits of
Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution and the
judiciary's role in reviewing such amendments. The case
had implications for land reform measures in other states
and provided a framework for implementing land
redistribution policies to promote social and economic
justice[70].
The Indra Sawhney Case(1992): The Supreme Court of
India delivered a landmark judgement on November 16,
1992, known as the Indra Sawhney Case or the Mandal
Commission Case. The case was named after Indra
Sawhney, who filed a writ petition challenging the
implementation of the Mandal Commission Report's
recommendations. The report, submitted in 1980,
recommended a 27% reservation for the Other Backward
Classes (OBCs) in government jobs and educational
institutions[71].
The case dealt with two primary issues: whether the
reservation for OBCs exceeded the 50% limit set by the
Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney Case, and whether
reservation could be considered a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution[72]. The Supreme Court
held that the reservation for the OBCs did not exceed the
50% limit, and the government had the power to exceed
this limit in exceptional circumstances. Additionally, the
Court held that reservation was not violative of the basic
structure of the Constitution[73].
The Court further established that the Constitution
recognizes the existence of backward classes and
provides for their upliftment. The concept of equality
enshrined in the Constitution does not mean treating
everyone alike, but rather, treating different groups
differently to achieve substantive equality. Reservation is
an essential feature of the Constitution and is part of its
basic structure. It is a necessary tool to achieve
substantive equality and promote social justice in the
country. The judgement in the Indra Sawhney Case
clarified that reservation is not a form of discrimination,
but rather a means to address the historic injustices faced
by certain communities[74][75].
The SR Bommai Case (1994): The SR Bommai Case is
a landmark in Indian constitutional history, addressing
the issue of the misuse of Article 356 of the Indian
Constitution. The case stemmed from the dismissal of the
government of Karnataka led by Veerendra Patil in 1988
by the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi under Article 356.
The dismissal was challenged in the Supreme Court by
Patil, leading to the SR Bommai Case[76].
At the core of the SR Bommai Case was whether the
President's power to dismiss a state government under
Article 356 was justiciable or not. The Supreme Court
held that the President's power under Article 356 is not
absolute and can be challenged in court. The Court also
established certain guidelines to be followed by the
President while dismissing a state government[77].
A significant aspect of the SR Bommai Case was the
Court's reiteration of the basic structure doctrine, which
upholds the Constitution's fundamental principles. The
Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution,
including federalism, secularism, democracy, and the rule
of law, cannot be amended even by the Parliament's
constituent power. The Court further stated that the
Constitution's federal character is an essential feature and
subject to judicial review[78].
The Court also laid down guidelines for the President's
dismissal of a state government under Article 356,
requiring relevant and valid material and objective facts.
The guidelines included allowing the dismissed
government to prove its majority in the Assembly,
holding a floor test, and giving a reasonable time to seek
a vote of confidence[79].
The SR Bommai Case was significant for the federal
structure of the Indian Constitution. The Court's
reiteration of the basic structure doctrine and the
limitations on Parliament's power to amend the
Constitution reinforced the Constitution's federal
character, democracy, secularism, and the rule of law.
The judgement has also played a vital role in preventing
the misuse of Article 356, which has been invoked over a
hundred times in India's constitutional history[80].
The L. Chandra Kumar Case (1997): The Supreme
Court of India's landmark judgement in the L. Chandra
Kumar case of 1997 dealt with the constitutionality of the
42nd amendment of the Indian Constitution, which
created administrative tribunals for the resolution of
disputes related to public services and other matters. The
petitioner, L. Chandra Kumar, an Indian Railway
Accounts Service employee, challenged the amendment's
validity on the grounds that it violated the basic structure
of the Constitution by undermining the separation of
powers between the judiciary and the executive[81].
In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the 42nd amendment, but stipulated
that administrative tribunals could not be entirely
independent of the judicial system. The court determined
that the creation of administrative tribunals did not
violate the basic structure doctrine as long as the
jurisdiction of the High Courts was not entirely
eliminated[82][83].
The court also held that administrative tribunals could
only be established by the Parliament, exclusively for
service-related disputes, and not for any other type of
dispute. Additionally, the court recognized the power of
the High Courts to review the decisions of administrative
tribunals and rule on the constitutionality of any law,
including those concerning administrative tribunals.
The judgement in the L. Chandra Kumar case reinforced
the importance of the basic structure doctrine and the
separation of powers between the judiciary and the
executive. It emphasised the significance of the High
Courts in India's constitutional framework and the need
to protect their jurisdiction and powers. Ultimately, the
ruling had a significant impact on the legal framework
governing administrative tribunals in India and ensured
that they were established in a manner that aligned with
the fundamental principles of the Constitution[84][85].
The 9th Schedule Case: The 2007 I.R. Coelho v. State
of Tamil Nadu case is a landmark judgement in Indian
constitutional law that reinforced and confirmed the
fundamental structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
The case dealt with a challenge to the Ninth Schedule of
the Constitution, which exempted laws from judicial
review. The petitioner contended that this violated the
Constitution's fundamental structure[86][87].
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, upheld the validity
of the Ninth Schedule but ruled that laws included in it
could still be reviewed by the courts. The court stated that
the fundamental structure doctrine, first established in the
Kesavananda Bharati case, was an essential component
of the Constitution's identity and could not be abrogated
or amended.
Furthermore, the court stated that the Constitution, as a
living document, evolved over time, and the fundamental
structure doctrine's scope and content could change
accordingly. The court ruled that any law that violated the
fundamental structure of the Constitution would be
deemed unconstitutional, regardless of whether it was
included in the Ninth Schedule.
The I.R.Coelho case is significant because it strengthened
and clarified the extent of the fundamental structure
doctrine, ensuring that it remained a robust tool for
safeguarding the Constitution's fundamental principles
and values. The case also underscored the judiciary's
importance in upholding the fundamental structure
doctrine and ensuring that the legislature or the executive
did not undermine the Constitution.
In conclusion, the I.R.Coelho case played a vital role in
shaping Indian constitutional law, reiterating the
fundamental structure doctrine and re-establishing the
Constitution's sovereignty as the ultimate source of
authority in the nation[88][89][90].
Madras Bar Association Case(2014): The Supreme
Court of India's landmark judgement in the Madras Bar
Association case of 2014 upheld the basic structure
doctrine of the Constitution and had significant
implications. The case centred around the
constitutionality of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005,
which aimed to establish a national tribunal to settle
taxation disputes. The Madras Bar Association
challenged the Act on the grounds that it contravened the
basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the
judiciary's independence and federalism principles[91].
The Association's primary argument was that the Act
undermined the judiciary's independence by transferring
the High Courts' jurisdiction to the national tribunal,
resulting in an unaccountable judicial system[92].
Additionally, the Act violated federalism by encroaching
on the States' powers to establish their tribunals. The
Supreme Court agreed with the Madras Bar Association
on both points, highlighting the Act's constitutional
defects[93].
In its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic
structure doctrine, emphasising that any law or
amendment that violates it would be invalidated. The
Court recognized that the basic structure includes not
only fundamental rights but also federalism, secularism,
democracy, and the independence of the judiciary[94].
Therefore, the Madras Bar Association case strengthened
the basic structure doctrine and emphasised the
judiciary's independence and federalism's significance in
India's constitutional framework. The judgement also
made it clear that any legislation or amendment that
challenges the Constitution's basic structure would be
declared unconstitutional[95].
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs Union Of
India & Ors. (2017): The 2017 case of Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India is a pivotal ruling in Indian
constitutional law that challenged the validity of the
Aadhaar Act, a biometric identification system for Indian
residents. The central issue of the case was whether the
Aadhaar Act violated the Indian Constitution's basic
structure[96].
In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld the basic
structure doctrine and declared the right to privacy as a
fundamental right protected under the Constitution. The
Court also stated that any law that infringes upon the
right to privacy would be unconstitutional and violate the
basic structure of the Constitution[97].
Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that the
Aadhaar Act violated the right to privacy and invalidated
several provisions of the Act. The Court also prohibited
the mandatory use of Aadhaar for government services or
subsidies, as it would breach the right to privacy[98].
The Puttaswamy case is notable for its reaffirmation of
the basic structure doctrine and its recognition of the right
to privacy as a fundamental right. The verdict emphasises
the necessity of safeguarding individual rights and
liberties against government overreach.
In summary, the Puttaswamy case highlights the
importance of the basic structure doctrine in protecting
fundamental rights and upholding the constitutional
principles of the Indian Constitution[99][100].
Comparative Analysis
The basic structure doctrine is a fundamental aspect of
Indian constitutional law, which has been the subject of
much debate and scrutiny by legal scholars and experts.
To fully appreciate its significance and implications, it is
useful to compare the basic structure doctrine with
similar constitutional doctrines from other countries.
One such comparison has been made with the doctrine of
implied limitations in the United States Constitution,
which recognizes certain unenumerated rights that cannot
be violated by the government. This is akin to the basic
structure doctrine, as both doctrines limit the power of
the government[100][101].
Another comparison has been made with the doctrine of
entrenchment in the Canadian Constitution, which
protects certain provisions of the Constitution from being
amended without the consent of the provinces. Similarly,
the basic structure doctrine protects certain provisions of
the Indian Constitution from being amended without the
consent of the people[103].
The basic structure doctrine has also been compared with
the doctrine of constitutional supremacy in the United
Kingdom, which asserts that the UK Parliament is the
ultimate law-making authority and no law can be
declared unconstitutional. This differs from the basic
structure doctrine, which empowers the judiciary to strike
down unconstitutional laws and safeguard the basic
structure of the Constitution[104].
Similarly, the basic structure doctrine has been compared
with the concept of fundamental rights in the Constitution
of South Africa, which recognizes specific fundamental
rights and freedoms that are protected from government
infringement. This is similar to the basic structure
doctrine as both aim to safeguard fundamental rights and
freedoms[105].
Lastly, the basic structure doctrine has been compared
with the concept of democratic constitutionalism in
Germany, which requires the Constitution to reflect the
democratic will of the people and protect their
fundamental rights and freedoms. This is similar to the
basic structure doctrine as both recognize the importance
of safeguarding democratic values and individual rights.
In conclusion, by comparing the basic structure doctrine
with various constitutional doctrines and concepts from
different countries, we can appreciate its importance in
upholding fundamental rights, liberties, and democratic
values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Criticism & Debates
The basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution
has been a subject of much criticism and debate. While it
has been hailed as a landmark judgement in Indian
constitutional law, it has also faced its fair share of
challenges and objections. Some of the major criticisms
and debates surrounding the basic structure doctrine are
as follows:
Lack of Clarity: One of the primary criticisms of the
basic structure doctrine is that it lacks clarity and
precision. As noted by legal scholar Upendra Baxi, "the
basic structure doctrine has generated more heat than
light." The doctrine has been criticised for being too
vague and subjective, leaving room for arbitrary judicial
interpretation.
Judicial Overreach: Another criticism of the basic
structure doctrine is that it amounts to judicial overreach.
According to some critics, the doctrine gives the judiciary
too much power and undermines the authority of other
branches of government. As noted by legal scholar A.G.
Noorani, "the basic structure doctrine is an invitation to
judicial lawmaking."
Political Bias: Some critics have also argued that the
basic structure doctrine reflects the personal and political
biases of the judges who developed it. As noted by legal
scholar Granville Austin, "the basic structure doctrine is
the product of a specific moment in India's history and
reflects the values and beliefs of the judges who created
it."
Undermining Democracy: Another major criticism of
the basic structure doctrine is that it undermines
democracy by limiting the power of elected
representatives. As noted by political scientist Rajeev
Dhavan, "the basic structure doctrine is anti-democratic
because it places the judiciary above the people's
representatives."
Lack of Accountability: Finally, some critics have
argued that the basic structure doctrine leads to a lack of
accountability, as it allows the judiciary to strike down
laws passed by elected representatives without being
accountable to the people. As noted by legal scholar S.P.
Sathe, "the basic structure doctrine gives judges the
power to override the will of the people without any
accountability."
Despite these criticisms and debates, the basic structure
doctrine remains a foundational principle of Indian
constitutional law. As noted by legal scholar H.M.
Seervai, "the basic structure doctrine is an essential
feature of the Indian Constitution and reflects the
fundamental values and principles that underlie Indian
democracy." While there may be disagreements and
debates over the precise scope and application of the
doctrine, it remains a crucial safeguard against arbitrary
and unconstitutional exercises of power.
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution's basic structure doctrine has
been pivotal in influencing its growth and interpretation.
The judiciary has relied on it to safeguard the
Constitution's key aspects and guarantee that it remains
an adaptable, living document that satisfies the
ever-changing needs of society. The concept has been
debated and revised over time, and the courts have used it
to nullify laws that breach the Constitution's fundamental
characteristics, ensuring that no rule or action can weaken
its core principles and values.
The basic structure doctrine has been applied to various
cases, with the judiciary recognizing several essential
features of the Constitution. These include the
Constitution's supremacy, the rule of law, democracy,
secularism, federalism, and the separation of powers
between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. These
features have been identified as unalterable,
non-negotiable and cannot be amended, abrogated, or
repealed.
Moreover, the basic structure doctrine has been used to
prevent constitutional amendments that seek to
undermine the Constitution's essential features. The
judiciary has the power to strike down amendments that
are perceived as harmful to the Constitution's basic
structure. The Kesavananda Bharati and the Minerva
Mills cases have demonstrated this.
In conclusion, the basic structure doctrine is an
indispensable tool in the growth and interpretation of the
Indian Constitution. It safeguards the Constitution's
crucial features, ensuring that it remains an
ever-evolving, living document. By striking down laws
and constitutional amendments that undermine the
Constitution's basic structure, the basic structure doctrine
has played a pivotal role in preserving the Constitution's
importance and upholding its values, thereby being the
cornerstone of Indian democracy.
 Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere, heartfelt gratitude to
Dr.Vikas Divyakirti sir (MD, Drishti IAS) for his
unfailing guidance, prolific encouragement, constructive
suggestions through the youtube platform. I would like to
thank Khan Sir (Khan GS Research Center), Rajesh
Mishra Sir & Manikant Singh Sir for their suggestions
and guidance through their teachings.I want to thank Shri
Manuj Jindal Sir, IAS, CEO of Zilla Parishad, Thane,
Maharashtra for his unstoppable guidance and moral
support in my journey. I would like to thank Shri
Saptarshi Nag sir, WBCS(EXE), PO & DWO of
Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal for his
innovative and passionate mindset which gave me the
right direction for this research. I also like to thank
Dr.Biplab Satpati sir and Dr.Koushik Ghosh sir and all
other professors from University Institute of Technology,
The University of Burdwan. I am thankful to Mr
P.Arvind(Ph.D) from IIT Bombay for his lifetime
guidance. Last, but not the least I want to thank my
Parents for their cooperation and support. Their wealth of
experience has been a source of strength for me
throughout the duration of my work.
References
1. Bhattacharya, S. (2019). The basic structure
doctrine in Indian Constitution and its Relevance
to Contemporary Times. Journal of Law and
Conflict Resolution, 11(2), 7-16.
2. Das, A. (2018). The basic structure doctrine: An
Analysis of its Scope and Limitations. Indian
Journal of Constitutional and Administrative
Law, 2(1), 45-60.
3. Doshi, T. (2017). The basic structure doctrine: A
Comparative Study of Indian and Indonesian
Constitutions. Journal of Comparative
Constitutional Law, 9(1), 23-45.
4. Kannabiran, K. (2016). The basic structure
doctrine in India: An Appraisal. Journal of Indian
Law and Society, 7(2), 45-62.
5. Bayly, C. A. (2001). Indian society and the
making of the British Empire. Cambridge
University Press.
6. Chandra, B. (2007). Modern India: A
comprehensive history. Anthem Press.
7. Metcalf, B. D., & Metcalf, T. R. (2012). A
concise history of modern India. Cambridge
University Press.
8. Guha, R. (2007). India after Gandhi: The history
of the world's largest democracy. Macmillan.
9. Bose, S., & Jalal, A. (2011). Modern South Asia:
History, culture, political economy. Routledge.
10. Peers, D. M. (2006). India under colonial rule:
1700–1885. Pearson Education.
11. Wolpert, S. A. (2003). A new history of India.
Oxford University Press.
12. Habib, I. (2012). The Agrarian System of
Mughal India, 1556-1707. Oxford University
Press.
13. Ludden, D. (2002). India and South Asia: A short
history. Oneworld Publications.
14. Kumar, R. (2017). India’s Road to Independence:
A Brief History. Routledge.
15. Baxi, U. (1985). The Indian Supreme Court and
Politics: 1972-1982. The Western Political
Quarterly, 38(2), 283-299. doi: 10.2307/448737
16. Basu, D. (2006). The Indian Constitution
Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University
Press.
17. Dhavan, R. (2017). The Indian Constitution: A
Case Study of Backlash. The American Journal
of Comparative Law, 65(1), 45-70. doi:
10.1093/ajcl/avx004
18. Kothari, R. (2005). India: Development and
Participation. Oxford University Press.
19. Muralidharan, K. (2015). The Indian Constitution
and the Right to Education. Journal of Social and
Economic Development, 17(2), 165-182. doi:
10.1007/s40847-015-0017-4
20. Pylee, M. V. (2011). India’s Constitution. S.
Chand Publishing.
21. Singh, M. P. (2019). The Right to Information
Act and Transparency in Indian Democracy.
International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science Research, 3(1), 50-60.
22. Thakur, N. (2016). The Right to Privacy in India.
International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science Research, 4(1), 42-55.
23. Verma, S. (2015). The Indian Constitution and
the Rights of the Child. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science Research, 3(1),
33-49.
24. Zaidi, S. A. (2018). Human Rights in India: The
Debate and Its Contemporary Relevance. Journal
of the Indian Law Institute, 60(2), 146-160.
25. Kumar, A. (2020). The basic structure doctrine
and Judicial Review in India: An Analysis.
Journal of Politics and Governance, 8(1), 34-45.
26. Singh, H. (2015). basic structure doctrine and the
Challenge of Constitutionalism in India. Indian
Journal of Law and Society, 6(2), 67-78.
27. Verma, S. (2018). The basic structure doctrine
and Constitutional Amendment: A Critical
Analysis. International Journal of Law and Legal
Jurisprudence Studies, 5(3), 34-51.
28. Venkatachaliah, M. N. (1989). The Basic
Structure Principle. The Indian Journal of Public
Administration, 35(2), 313-330.
29. Zaidi, M. R. (2019). The basic structure doctrine:
A Comparative Study of Indian and Pakistani
Constitutions. Journal of Politics and Society,
2(1), 67-89.
30. Jain, M. (2017). basic structure doctrine in India:
A Critical Analysis. Indian Journal of
Constitutional and Administrative Law, 1(2),
23-45.
31. Upendra Baxi, "The Indian Supreme Court and
Politics: On Limits of Judicial Independence,"
International and Comparative Law Quarterly 30,
no. 3 (1981): 453-475.
32. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution:
Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford University
Press, 1999).
33. R.C. Aggarwal, "The basic structure doctrine and
Judicial Supremacy," Indian Journal of Public
Administration 39, no. 3 (1993): 441-448.
34. Uday S. Mehta, "The Transformative
Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine
Acts," The Journal of Asian Studies 77, no. 2
(2018): 301-320.
35. Ronojoy Sen, "The Political Economy of the
Indian Constitution," Economic and Political
Weekly 44, no. 40 (2009): 37-45.
36. Upendra Baxi, "The Supreme Court of India: On
the Limits of Judicial Independence," The
American Journal of Comparative Law 28, no. 4
(1980): 601-618.
37. Madhav Khosla, The Indian Constitution (Oxford
University Press, 2012).
38. Ananth Kumar, "The Doctrine of Basic Structure:
A Critical Review," Journal of the Indian Law
Institute 41, no. 1 (1999): 25-42.
39. Chintan Chandrachud, "The basic structure
doctrine and Constitutional Transformation in
India," International Journal of Constitutional
Law 13, no. 3 (2015): 575-593.
40. Granville Austin, Working a Democratic
Constitution: The Indian Experience (Oxford
University Press, 2003).
41. D. D. Basu. (2013). Introduction to the
Constitution of India. LexisNexis Butterworths.
42. M. P. Jain. (2010). Indian Constitutional Law.
LexisNexis Butterworths.
43. A. G. Noorani. (2010). Constitutional Questions
in India: The President, Parliament and the
States. Oxford University Press.
44. Granville Austin. (2003). The Indian
Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford
University Press.
45. S. C. Kashyap. (2014). basic structure doctrine:
A Comparative Analysis. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science Research, 4(2),
77-87.
46. H. M. Seervai. (1991). Constitutional Law of
India: A Critical Commentary. Universal Law
Publishing.
47. Uday Kumar Singh. (2018). basic structure
doctrine in Indian Constitutional Law: Evolution
and Judicial Interpretation. Journal of Law and
Public Policy, 2(2), 20-31.
48. Upendra Baxi. (2002). The Crisis of the Indian
Legal System. Oxford University Press.
49. M. V. Pylee. (1997). India's Constitution. S.
Chand & Company.
50. P. K. Tripathi. (2015). Indian Constitutional Law.
Allahabad Law Agency.
51. Rajeev Dhavan. (2005). The Supreme Court of
India: The Beginnings. Oxford University Press.
52. S. N. Mishra. (2016). Constitution of India: Text,
Context and Interpretation. Oxford University
Press.
53. Durga Das Basu. (1960). The Indian
Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation.
Prentice-Hall of India.
54. Madhav Khosla. (2012). The Indian Constitution.
Oxford University Press.
55. Basu, D. D. (2005). Commentary on the
Constitution of India (8th ed.). Wadhwa &
Company Nagpur.
56. Jain, M. P. (2013). Outlines of Indian Legal and
Constitutional History (6th ed.). LexisNexis.
57. Jha, M. P. (2010). Indian Government and
Politics (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
58. Keshav Rao Korada, P. (1991). The Constitution
of India: Select Issues. Deep & Deep
Publications.
59. Nariman, F. (2018). God Save the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Penguin India.
60. Sengupta, S., & Bhattacharyya, R. (2016). The
Minerva Mills Judgment and its Impact on
Constitutional Law. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science Research, 6(2),
29-38.
61. Kumar, A. (2018). The Doctrine of Basic
Structure and the Minerva Mills Case. The Indian
Journal of Political Science, 79(1), 59-71.
62. Tripathi, S. (2019). Minerva Mills and the Quest
for Judicial Supremacy: An Appraisal. Journal of
Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence, 12(1),
23-39.
63. Bhardwaj, R. (2015). A Critical Analysis of
Minerva Mills Case. International Journal of
Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature,
3(5), 43-48.
64. Sharma, N. (2017). Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors.
v. Union of India and Ors.: A Critical Analysis.
International Journal of Law and Policy Review,
6(1), 43-50.
65. Shukla, R. S. (2016). Constitution of India (13th
ed.). Eastern Book Company.
66. Singh, M. P. (2007). Waman Rao and the Basic
Structure Doctrine. Economic and Political
Weekly, 42(31), 3254-3257.
67. Chandrachud, Y. V. (1980). The Waman Rao
case: A critique. Economic and Political Weekly,
15(11), 471-474.
68. Chakrabarti, R. (2012). Waman Rao revisited:
The basic structure doctrine in India. NUJS Law
Review, 5, 183-198.
69. Menon, N. R. (1994). Waman Rao and the
Doctrine of Severability. Journal of Indian Law
Institute, 36(3), 348-357.
70. Sathe, S. P. (1981). The Waman Rao case and the
legitimacy of judicial review. Economic and
Political Weekly, 16(5/6), 196-199.
71. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2
SCC 1.
72. R. K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 714.
73. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR
1973 SC 1461.
74. S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
75. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC
1789.
76. Venkatachaliah, M. N. (1994). S.R. Bommai v.
Union of India: A milestone in Indian federal
jurisprudence. Indian Journal of Public
Administration, 40(4), 744-755.
77. Chakraborty, C. (2011). A Critique on S.R.
Bommai vs. Union of India Case. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(4),
184-189.
78. Reddy, G. R. (1995). The S. R. Bommai Case
and the Political Crisis in Karnataka. Economic
and Political Weekly, 30(51), 3271-3274.
79. Ranganathan, S. (2012). S.R. Bommai vs. Union
of India: The Apex Court as Defender of the
Constitution. Economic and Political Weekly,
47(50), 69-74.
80. Venkatachaliah, M. N. (1997). The L. Chandra
Kumar Case: Reconciling Parliamentary
Sovereignty and Judicial Review. International
and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46(1), 1-16.
doi:10.1093/iclqaj/46.1.1
81. Jayal, N. G. (1997). L. Chandra Kumar v Union
of India: A Critical Analysis. Economic and
Political Weekly, 32(45/46), 2919-2925.
82. Singh, A. (1997). L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India: Redefining the Relationship between the
Judiciary and the Executive. Journal of the Indian
Law Institute, 39(1), 41-60.
83. Bhattacharya, S. (1997). L. Chandra Kumar v
Union of India: Re-affirming the Supremacy of
the Indian Constitution. The Cambridge Law
Journal, 56(2), 305-310.
doi:10.1017/S0008197300036863
84. Dhavan, R. (1997). The L. Chandra Kumar Case:
Reflections on Judicial Review and
Parliamentary Sovereignty. The Indian Journal of
Political Science, 58(1), 41-55.
85. Dhar, P. N. (2007). Interpretation of the
Constitution: The IR Coelho case. Economic and
Political Weekly, 42(38), 3841-3846.
86. Chandrachud, A. (2011). From the Golaknath to
the Coelho judgment: Reflections on the
Supreme Court's journey towards a new
constitutionalism. Economic and Political
Weekly, 46(21), 119-128.
87. Kaul, S. (2010). The Constitution, judicial review
and federalism: The IR Coelho case. Seminar,
(610), 46-49.
88. Varma, A. (2008). The Coelho verdict:
Strengthening the basic structure doctrine.
Economic and Political Weekly, 43(22), 14-17.
89. Jaiswal, A. K. (2008). IR Coelho vs State of
Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1: A critical analysis.
Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 50(3/4),
461-479.
90. Verma, M. L. (1994). S.R. Bommai vs. Union of
India: The Shape of Things to Come?. Economic
and Political Weekly, 29(39), 2513-2515.
91. Venkatachalam, T. (2010). Madras Bar
Association v. Union of India: Reflections on the
Independence of the Judiciary. Economic and
Political Weekly, 45(25), 20-23.
92. Menon, S. (2011). The Madras Bar Association
Case: Implications for Judicial Independence.
Journal of Indian Law and Society, 2(1), 62-75.
93. Garg, A. (2012). Madras Bar Association vs.
Union of India: A Study of the Independence of
View publication stats

the Indian Judiciary. Journal of Indian Law and

Society, 3(1), 69-76.
94. Jaisingh, P. (2014). Madras Bar Association vs.
Union of India: A Study of the Independence of
the Indian Judiciary. Indian Journal of
Constitutional and Administrative Law, 3(2),
52-63.
95. Nigam, S. (2015). Madras Bar Association v.
Union of India: A Case of Judicial Independence.
Journal of Indian Law and Society, 6(1), 86-93.
96. Puttaswamy, K. S. (2017). The importance of
privacy. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(23),
11-14.
97. Jain, V. (2017). Right to Privacy and the Aadhaar
Card: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s
Decision. Journal of Indian Law and Society, 8,
102-111.
98. Gupta, M. K. (2018). Right to privacy in India: A
constitutional perspective. Journal of Law and
Social Sciences, 1(1), 43-56.
99. Singh, A. K. (2018). Right to privacy under the
Indian Constitution: A critical analysis of
Puttaswamy judgment. International Journal of
Legal Research and Governance, 3(3), 305-320.
100. Sajal, M. A. (2018). Right to privacy and the
Indian constitution: An analysis of the
Puttaswamy case. Journal of Legal Studies, 2(2),
77-83.
101. Venkatesan, J. (2014). The Constitution of
India: A Contextual Analysis. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
102. T. R. Andhyarujina. (2000). The
Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Untold Story of
Struggle for Supremacy by Supreme Court and
Parliament. Universal Law Publishing.
103. K. N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, basic structure
doctrine and Constitutionalism in India (2017),
pp. 23-45.
104. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution:
Cornerstone of a Nation (1966), pp. 185-215.
105. Upendra Baxi, "The Indian Supreme Court
and Politics: 1972-1981," Journal of
Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, vol. 22,
no. 2 (1984), pp. 151-176.