DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE: The basic explanation of doctrine of basic structure is to amend the new aspects or evolve the constitution of India to make necessary changes in that particular part of constitution. There is no such concept of “Doctrine of basic structure”, in the constitution of India, but then also it may arise and has happened in few cases which make it history and were called ‘Landmark Judgements’. Following are that landmark judgement which were based on doctrine of basic structure.
SHANKARI PRASAD CASE (1951): In this case the supreme court observed that power of the parliament to amend the Constitution (Article 368) also includes the Article 13 of fundamental rights which can make amended using it and it don’t void the fundamental right under Article 13 ,also parliament can take away this fundamental right and in this there is no unlawfully act , this was amended as 1st Amendment Act,1951. This was observed in this case.
SAJJAN SINGH CASE (1965) : The case brief about the change which happened to the Articles 31A and 31B and added Acts to the Ninth Schedule, was constitutionally valid. The Court ruled that the power conferred by Article 368 includes the authority to change or amend the provisions of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights undertake by Part-3 The amendments made by Parliament were considered unexpected and unimportant in their impact on Article 226, thus falling under Article 368 and not including the provision.
GOLAKANTH CASE (1967): The trial of Golaknath was a turning point in Indian history. The case’s conclusion arrived at an inconvenient moment. It happened during the ‘darkest era in the country’s history. The oppression of the parliament came to an end with this decision. The majority court was concerned that the constitution might be weakened as a result of the decision. This ruling stopped the legislature from infringing on citizens’ basic rights by passing legislation that limited the legislature’s jurisdiction. The trial was focused on preserving basic human rights that no government can take away.
KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE (1973): This case was one of the historically case study for the India and it was landmark judgement, this case is best example of the doctrine of the basic structure in which there was obtained that with the verdict of 7-6, as 13 judges bench of constitution ruled that basic rule of constitution cannot be Challenged and cannot make any amended in the parliament of constitution.
INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI VS. RAJ NARAIN (1975): The most famous and landmark case for the misusing the power of the position within the government and sovereign for the benefit of personal to maintain the position and power, also due to which in country there was called the ‘EMERGENCY’, misuse of power by Indira Gandhi to maintain the post which was wrongfully used of Article 329A and also basic structure of the constitution and it impact the citizen of India.
MINERVA MILLS CASE (1980): The court ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an unlimited power. In addition, a majority of the court also held that the parliament’s power to amend is not a power to destroy.
WAMAN RAO CASE (1981): In conclusion, the court in Waman Rao vs Union of India finally ruled that the First Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951, that introduced Articles 31A, 31B, as well as the 25th Amendment Act that introduced Article 31C were constitutional, and did not damage any basic or essential features or the basic doctrine of basic structure of constitution.
INDRA SAWHEY AND UNION OF INDIA (1992): The apex court observed that Article 16(4) of constitution in which reservation for jobs for the scheduled class(SC), OBC(other backward classes) at certain percentage with few conditions was followed, under the ‘Rule Of Law’ is added certain list of basic features to the constitution.
SR BOMMAI CASE(1994):In this case, the court gives the information that the President’s power under Article356 is not always absolute and its proclamation is not liable under judicial review and not forcefully implemented of it.
MANUSCRIPT BY- Bhumika H Brahmbhatt, JG Institute Of Law, Ahmedabad.
