ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 10th August. Click Here for more information.
Source: The post Basic Structure Doctrine has been created on the article “Protecting Basic Structure from judicial arbitrariness” published in “Indian express” on 11th December 2023.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- Polity- Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.
News: This article discusses the Basic Structure Doctrine of India’s Constitution, introduced 50 years ago. It talks about its origins, debates around it, and the need for limits on government powers. The doctrine’s future and ways to avoid judicial bias are also explored.
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The Basic Structure Doctrine, established by India’s Supreme Court in 1973, states that Parliament cannot alter key elements of the Constitution.
Inspired by German jurist Dietrich Conrad’s ideas, it limits government power, ensuring fundamental features of the Constitution are protected. For example, it played a crucial role during the Emergency of 1975, preventing the Prime Minister from drastically changing the Constitution. This doctrine maintains a balance between different government branches.
For more information on the Basic Structure Doctrine read here
What are the arguments supporting the doctrine?
Limitation of Powers: It imposes necessary restrictions on all government bodies, including the judiciary. The doctrine ensures that Parliament cannot unilaterally alter the Constitution’s core aspects.
Safeguarding Fundamental Features: The doctrine protects the Constitution’s most fundamental features from amendment, thus preserving the democratic framework and fundamental rights.
Upholding Constitutional Supremacy: It emphasizes the Constitution’s supremacy over all government organs. The judiciary, tasked with interpreting the Constitution, uses this doctrine to maintain a balance of power and prevent any one branch from becoming too dominant.
What are the arguments against the doctrine?
Excessive Power to the Supreme Court: Critics argue that the doctrine gives the Supreme Court too much authority to decide what constitutes the ‘Basic Structure’, potentially undermining other institutions. For instance, Former Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley criticized the Supreme Court’s NJAC judgment. He pointed out that it prioritized judicial independence in basic structure, while overlooking five key constitutional elements: parliamentary democracy, elected government, council of ministers, Prime Minister, and leader of the opposition.
Risk of Judicial Arbitrariness: There’s a concern that the open-ended nature of the doctrine might lead to subjective interpretations, reducing its legitimacy as a constitutional safeguard.
What should be done?
Enhancing Judicial Legitimacy through Public Trust: Justice Nambiar’s thesis (“The Judicial Role in Constitutional Protection: Examining the Legitimacy of Basic Structure Review in India”) emphasizes the need for the judiciary to earn public trust. It can be done through the efficacy of its judgments and through demonstrating the legitimacy of its decisions, especially in the context of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Addressing Concerns of Constitutional Validity: While the doctrine has been consistently upheld, there are ongoing doubts about its constitutional validity and application scope. Addressing these concerns is crucial to maintain a healthy balance between the judiciary’s power and the roles of other institutions.
Inclusive Debates and Discussions: Encourage broader debates and discussions about the interpretations and applications of judicial doctrines, including the Basic Structure Doctrine. This promotes a comprehensive understanding and allows for more inclusive perspectives in shaping its future.
For more information on 50 years of Basic Structure Doctrine read here
Question for practice:
Discuss the Basic Structure Doctrine’s role in balancing government powers and the concerns about its potential for excessive judicial authority.
