■ Exam Tip: Basic Structure Doctrine is the MOST IMPORTANT topic in Con Law II.

It appears as a
12-mark essay almost every year. Learn the evolution through cases: Shankari Prasad → Sajjan Singh
→ Golaknath → Kesavananda Bharati → Indira Gandhi → Minerva Mills → I.R. Coelho.

1. INTRODUCTION

Definition:
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle developed by the Supreme Court of India which holds
that the Constitution of India has certain fundamental features that cannot be altered or destroyed by
Parliament, even through a constitutional amendment under Article 368.

Constitutional Provision — Article 368:

Article 368 — Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor.
Parliament may, in exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any
provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Article.

The central question this doctrine answers is: Is Parliament's power to amend the Constitution
unlimited? The Supreme Court's answer, after years of evolution, is: NO. Certain basic features of the
Constitution are beyond the amending power of Parliament.

2. EVOLUTION OF THE DOCTRINE — CHRONOLOGICAL CASES

Year Case Key Ruling

1951 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India Parliament CAN amend Fundamental Rights under Art. 368

1964 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Affirmed Shankari Prasad; no limitation on amendment power

1967 Golaknath v. State of Punjab Overruled earlier cases; Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Ri

1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala LANDMARK — Basic Structure Doctrine established

1975 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain Applied basic structure; 39th Amendment struck down

1980 Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India Art. 368(4) & (5) struck down; judicial review = basic structure

1992 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India Rule of law and equality held as basic structure

2007 I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu 9th Schedule laws subject to basic structure review
3. LANDMARK CASES IN DETAIL

CASE 1: Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

AIR 1951 SC 458 | Constitution Bench

Facts: The 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951) inserted Art. 31A & 31B and the 9th Schedule, which
curtailed property rights (Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 31). It was challenged as violating Fundamental Rights.

Issue: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Art. 368?

Held: YES. The word 'law' in Art. 13(2) refers only to ordinary legislation, NOT to constitutional
amendments. Hence, Parliament has unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution including
Fundamental Rights.

Significance: Gave Parliament absolute power of amendment — later overruled.

CASE 2: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

AIR 1965 SC 845

Facts: 17th Constitutional Amendment was challenged. It inserted certain State Acts in 9th Schedule.

Held: Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights. Art. 13(2) does not
apply to constitutional amendments.

Note: Hidayatullah J. and Mudholkar J. dissented — first seeds of basic structure thinking.

CASE 3: Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) — THE TURNING POINT

AIR 1967 SC 1643 | 11-Judge Constitution Bench

Facts: The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act was added to 9th Schedule by 17th Amendment. The
Golaknath family challenged it as violating their Fundamental Rights.

Held (6:5 majority): Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Rights. Constitutional amendments are
also 'law' under Art. 13(2). Fundamental Rights are given a 'transcendental position' and cannot be
abridged.

Applied Prospective Overruling: The ruling would not affect past amendments — applied only to future
amendments.

Significance: Overruled Shankari Prasad & Sajjan Singh. Led Parliament to pass the 24th Amendment
to counter this ruling.
CASE 4: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — THE LANDMARK CASE ■
AIR 1973 SC 1461 | 13-Judge Constitution Bench (Largest ever in India)

Facts: Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reform
Act (which curtailed his right to manage religious property) and the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments.

Issues:
1. Is Parliament's amending power under Art. 368 unlimited?
2. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
3. Was the 24th Amendment valid?

Held (7:6 majority):

• Parliament CAN amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights — overruling
Golaknath.
• BUT — Parliament CANNOT alter the BASIC STRUCTURE or ESSENTIAL FEATURES of the
Constitution.
• The 24th Amendment (which gave Parliament power to amend any provision) was valid.
• The 25th Amendment (which curtailed Art. 31) was partly invalid.

Basic Structure Elements identified (non-exhaustive):

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Republican and Democratic form of Government
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Separation of powers
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Dignity of the individual and unity & integrity of the nation
• Parliamentary system of Government
• Rule of Law
• Independence of Judiciary

KEY QUOTE (Sikri CJ): 'Every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided the basic
foundation and structure of the Constitution remains the same.'

CASE 5: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) — First Application

AIR 1975 SC 2299

Facts: The 39th Amendment sought to keep the election of the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister
and Speaker of Lok Sabha outside the purview of courts. It was passed to overturn the Allahabad HC
judgment setting aside Indira Gandhi's election.

Held: The 39th Amendment was unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure. It destroyed:
• Rule of Law
• Free and fair elections (an essential feature of democracy)
• Separation of powers

Significance: First instance where the Supreme Court actually STRUCK DOWN a constitutional
amendment using the basic structure doctrine. Confirmed Kesavananda Bharati in practice.
CASE 6: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) — CRITICAL CASE
AIR 1980 SC 1789 | 5-Judge Constitution Bench

Facts: The 42nd Amendment (1976, during Emergency) inserted Art. 368(4) and 368(5) which stated
that no constitutional amendment could be questioned in any court, and gave Parliament unlimited
amending power. It also amended Art. 31C to give Directive Principles (Part IV) supremacy over all
Fundamental Rights.

Held: Art. 368(4) and Art. 368(5) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as they destroy basic structure because:
• They attempt to give Parliament unlimited power to amend — violating the doctrine of limited amending
power.
• They exclude judicial review — which itself is a basic feature.
• They upset the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Key Principle (Chandrachud CJ): 'The Constitution has conferred a limited amending power on
Parliament. Parliament cannot, under the exercise of that limited power, expand that very power into an
absolute power.'

New Basic Structure elements confirmed:

• Judicial Review
• Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
• Limited amending power of Parliament
CASE 7: Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)

AIR 1981 SC 271

Held: Laws inserted in 9th Schedule before April 24, 1973 (date of Kesavananda judgment) are fully
protected and cannot be challenged. Laws inserted after that date CAN be challenged if they violate
basic structure.

CASE 8: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) — 9th Schedule Case

AIR 2007 SC 861 | 9-Judge Constitution Bench

Facts: Whether laws placed in the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973, are immune from judicial review.

Held: Laws added to 9th Schedule after the Kesavananda judgment (24.04.1973) are NOT immune from
judicial scrutiny. They can be struck down if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution,
particularly if they abrogate or take away Fundamental Rights forming part of the basic structure.

4. ELEMENTS OF BASIC STRUCTURE — COMPLETE LIST

Note: The Supreme Court has NOT given an exhaustive list of basic structure elements. Different judges
have identified different features in different cases. Below is a consolidated list.

# Basic Structure Element Case Where Identified

1 Supremacy of the Constitution Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

2 Republican & Democratic form of Government Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

3 Secular character of the Constitution Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

4 Separation of Powers Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

5 Federal character of the Constitution Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

6 Dignity of the Individual Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

7 Unity and Integrity of the Nation Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

8 Parliamentary system of Government Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

9 Rule of Law Indira Gandhi Case (1975)

10 Free and fair elections Indira Gandhi Case (1975)

11 Judicial Review Minerva Mills (1980)

12 Independence of Judiciary S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)

13 Power of Judicial Review under Art. 32 & 226 L. Chandra Kumar (1997)

14 Sovereignty of India Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

15 Harmony between FRs and DPSPs Minerva Mills (1980)

16 Limited amending power of Parliament Minerva Mills (1980)

17 Principle of Equality (Art. 14) Indra Sawhney (1992)

5. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS & BASIC STRUCTURE

24th Amendment (1971)

Added Art. 368(1) giving Parliament express power to amend 'any provision' of the Constitution. Also
amended Art. 13 to state that Art. 368 amendments are not 'law' under Art. 13. Held VALID in
Kesavananda Bharati.

25th Amendment (1971)

Substituted Art. 31(2). Inserted Art. 31C — laws giving effect to Art. 39(b)&(c) cannot be challenged on
grounds of violating Art. 14, 19, 31. Partly valid in Kesavananda — the exclusion of judicial review portion
was struck down.

29th Amendment (1972)

Added two Kerala Land Reform Acts to 9th Schedule. Upheld subject to basic structure.

39th Amendment (1975)

Kept election of PM, President, VP, Speaker outside court jurisdiction. STRUCK DOWN in Indira Gandhi
Case — violated free elections, rule of law, separation of powers.

42nd Amendment (1976)

Added Art. 368(4) & (5) — excluded courts from reviewing amendments; gave Parliament unlimited
amending power. Also gave Directive Principles supremacy over Fundamental Rights. Art. 368(4) & (5)
STRUCK DOWN in Minerva Mills — destroyed basic structure.

44th Amendment (1978)

Restored several provisions changed by 42nd Amendment. Removed Art. 368(4) and (5). VALID —
actually restored basic structure.
6. CRITICISM AND SUPPORT OF THE DOCTRINE

CRITICISM SUPPORT / JUSTIFICATION

Not mentioned in Constitution — judicial innovation Necessary to prevent Parliamentary tyranny and dictatorship

Undemocratic — unelected judges limiting elected Parliament

Protects democratic values from being destroyed by Parliament itself

Basic structure is vague — no definitive list Flexibility allows the doctrine to evolve with constitutional needs

Undermines Parliamentary sovereignty Constituent power is not the same as Parliamentary supremacy

Creates uncertainty in constitutional law Acts as a safety valve against constitutional adventurism

7. MODEL ANSWER STRUCTURE (12-MARK ESSAY)

Question Format: 'Critically examine the Basic Structure Doctrine with reference to constitutional
amendments and leading cases.' OR 'Trace the constitutional history in the development of the basic
structure doctrine.'

Para 1 — Introduction (1 mark)

Define Basic Structure Doctrine. Mention Art. 368. State that it is a judicial creation holding that
Parliament's amending power is limited and cannot alter essential features of the Constitution.

Para 2 — Pre-Doctrine Era (2 marks)

Discuss Shankari Prasad (1951) — Parliament can amend FRs. Sajjan Singh (1964) — affirmed.
Golaknath (1967) — Parliament cannot amend FRs; prospective overruling. 24th Amendment enacted to
counter Golaknath.

Para 3 — Kesavananda Bharati 1973 (3 marks)

13-judge bench. Overruled Golaknath — Parliament CAN amend FRs. BUT introduced Basic Structure
Doctrine. Listed elements. Sikri CJ's quote. 24th Amendment valid, 25th partly invalid.

Para 4 — Subsequent Development (2 marks)

Indira Gandhi Case (1975) — 39th Amendment struck down. Minerva Mills (1980) — Art. 368(4)&(5)
struck down; judicial review and harmony between FRs and DPSPs as basic structure. I.R. Coelho (2007)
— 9th Schedule laws after 1973 subject to review.

Para 5 — Elements of Basic Structure (2 marks)

List 8-10 elements: supremacy of Constitution, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, federalism,
rule of law, judicial review, independence of judiciary, free elections.

Para 6 — Significance & Criticism (1 mark)

Significance: protects constitutional democracy. Criticism: undemocratic, vague.

Para 7 — Conclusion (1 mark)

Summarise: Basic structure doctrine is the Supreme Court's most significant contribution to constitutional
law. It balances Parliamentary supremacy with constitutional supremacy, ensuring India's democratic
foundation remains inviolable.

8. QUICK REVISION — CASES AT A GLANCE

Case Year Held Status

Shankari Prasad 1951 Parliament CAN amend FRs Overruled

Sajjan Singh 1964 Affirmed Shankari Prasad Overruled

Golaknath 1967 Parliament CANNOT amend FRs Overruled

Kesavananda Bharati 1973 Basic Structure Doctrine — Parliament CAN amend FRs
GOOD
BUT NOT ✓
LAW basic structure

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 GOOD LAW ✓

39th Amendment struck down — free elections = basic structure

Minerva Mills 1980 GOOD LAW ✓

Art. 368(4)&(5) struck down — judicial review = basic structure

I.R. Coelho 2007 GOOD LAW ✓

9th Schedule laws post-1973 subject to basic structure review

9. CONCLUSION

The Basic Structure Doctrine is the most significant judicial contribution to Indian constitutional law.
Evolved through decades of constitutional conflict between Parliament and the Judiciary, it ultimately
establishes that while Parliament has wide powers under Art. 368, it cannot use those powers to destroy
the very Constitution it is bound to uphold. As the Supreme Court held in Kesavananda Bharati, the
Constitution is supreme, and its essential features — democracy, secularism, federalism, rule of law, and
judicial independence — form an inviolable core that transcends even the constituent power of
Parliament. This doctrine ensures that India remains a constitutional democracy and not a parliamentary
autocracy.

All the Best for Your Examination! ■ — Kerala University BA LLB 5th Semester | Constitutional Law II