Answer

The Basic Structure Doctrine, propounded in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), restricts Parliament from altering the Constitution’s core principles like judicial review, secularism, and federalism. It acts as a constitutional bulwark safeguarding democracy against majoritarian excesses and arbitrary amendments.

Basic Structure Doctrine as a Bulwark Against Majoritarian Excesses

• Upholds Fundamental Rights: It prevents Parliament from amending core fundamental rights essential to democratic functioning.
  Eg: In Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that curtailed judicial review and liberties.
• Preserves Judicial Independence: It blocks executive encroachment into the appointment and functioning of judges.
  Eg: In the NJAC case (2015), the Court invalidated the 99th Amendment, reaffirming the collegium system.
• Prevents Electoral Malpractices: It safeguards free and fair elections from constitutional distortions.
  Eg: In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), SC struck down the 39th Amendment that shielded the PM’s election from review.
• Protects Federalism: It limits arbitrary central dismissal of state governments and legislative overreach.
  Eg: In S.R. Bommai (1994), the SC ruled against misuse of Article 356, strengthening the federal structure.
• Safeguards Secularism: It ensures that majoritarian ideology doesn’t erode India’s secular character.
  Eg: The SC upheld secularism as part of the Preamble, protected under the basic structure in multiple rulings.
• Checks Emergency Excesses: Acts as a constitutional safeguard against authoritarian misuse during periods of political crisis
• Eg: The Basic Structure Doctrine ensured that despite rights being curtailed during the Emergency, core constitutional values remained protected after its withdrawal in 1977.

Relevance of Basic Structure in Contemporary Indian Democracy

• Restrains Populist Laws: It limits laws passed under majority pressure that violate constitutional values.
  Eg: In 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Electoral Bonds Scheme, citing donation opaqueness and threats to free elections.
• Protects Federal Governance: It ensures legislative and administrative balance between Centre and States.
  Eg: In the 2025 Tamil Nadu Governor case, SC ruled that delayed assent to bills  violates federalism and constitutional duty.
• Blocks Executive Overreach: It prevents unchecked use of investigative agencies for political gains.
  Eg: In 2025, SC stayed the ED money laundering probe against Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), citing  agency overreach.
• Secures New-Age Rights: It protects emerging rights under evolving constitutional interpretation.
  Eg: In the Puttaswamy (2017) case, the SC declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental part of human dignity, protected by the basic structure doctrine.
• Upholds Rule of Law: It reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring laws and actions remain within constitutional boundaries.
  Eg: In 2025, CJI B. R. Gavai reaffirmed judicial review as essential to the rule of law under basic structure.

Despite its crucial role in safeguarding democracy, the Basic Structure Doctrine faces limitations that challenge its effectiveness in contemporary India.

Limitations of the Basic Structure Doctrine

• Lack of Explicit Constitutional Mention: The doctrine is a judicial innovation, not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
  Eg: Article 368 outlines the procedure for constitutional amendment but does not reference any ‘basic structure’.
• Subjectivity and Judicial Discretion: The doctrine lacks a fixed definition; what constitutes the ‘basic structure’ is interpreted by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis.
  Eg: Secularism, democracy, and Rule of law are accepted, but inclusion of other features like ‘Judicial review’ or ‘free and fair elections’ varies over time.
• Potential Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the doctrine allows the judiciary to override Parliament’s will, affecting the balance of power.
  Eg: Striking down constitutional amendments like the 99th Amendment on NJAC raised debates on judicial supremacy.
• Inconsistency in Application: Different benches have interpreted the doctrine with varying scope and emphasis, leading to uncertainty in constitutional jurisprudence.
  Eg: In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), 13 judges offered different views on what constitutes the basic structure.
• Lack of Accountability in Interpretation: Judges are not democratically elected, yet they have the power to define the core of the Constitution, raising legitimacy concerns in a parliamentary democracy.
• Limited Global Acceptance: Most democracies allow for constitutional amendments without a basic structure limitation, making India’s approach somewhat unique and difficult to compare.
• Hinders Progressive Amendments: The doctrine can potentially block reforms intended for social or economic justice if they are perceived to alter the ‘basic structure’. Ambiguity around the limits of reservations or economic reforms may trigger unnecessary judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion 1

To uphold constitutional morality in a rapidly evolving democracy, India must strengthen the Basic Structure Doctrine through legal codification, judicial consistency, and public awareness. This will ensure that future amendments respect the foundational ethos of the Constitution and safeguard democratic accountability and citizen rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF