Basic Structure Doctrine

Basic Structure Doctrine

News: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar criticized the Supreme Court for using the Basic Structure Doctrine to strike down constitutional amendments by Parliament, such as the NJAC Act. 

What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
• The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a form of judicial review that is used to test the legality of any legislation by the courts.
• The doctrine was evolved by the Supreme Court in the 1973 landmark ruling in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala. In a 7-6 verdict, a 13-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution is inviolable, and could not be amended by Parliament. 
• The origins of the basic structure doctrine are found in the post-war German Constitution law which, after the Nazi regime, was amended to protect some basic laws. 

What is the Basic Structure Doctrine test?
• If a law is found to “damage or destroy” the “basic features of the Constitution”, the Court declares it unconstitutional.
• The test is applied to constitutional amendments to ensure the amendment does not dilute the fundamentals of the Constitution itself.
• The test is widely regarded as a check on majoritarian impulses of the Parliament since it places substantive limits on the power to amend the Constitution.

What are the important cases to understand Basic Structure Doctrine?
• Shankari Prasad (1951), Golak Nath (1967), Keshavnanda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980) 

What is the significance of Basic Structure of Constitution?
• Proponents of the basic structure doctrine consider it to be a safety valve against majoritarian authoritarianism. 
• It saved the Indian democracy as it acts as a limitation of constituent power or else unlimited power of parliament might have turned India into a totalitarian regime.
• It strengthens our democracy by delineating a true separation of power where the Judiciary is independent of the other two organs.
• Being dynamic in nature, it is more progressive and open to changes in time, unlike the rigid nature of earlier judgements.

Why is the Doctrine criticized?
• Some critics of the doctrine, like senior advocate Raju Ramachandran have argued that the power of “unelected judges” to strike down amendments to the Constitution on the basis of this doctrine is “anti-democratic and counter-majoritarian.”
• It is not found in the text of the original Constitution itself and therefore by inventing this test the judiciary is encroaching on the Parliament’s powers.

Conclusion
• Legal scholarship over the years has defended the legitimacy of the test. They have argued that the doctrine rests on a sound structural interpretation of Constitution. 
• For example, Justice YV Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India found himself in the minority in the Kesavananda Bharati ruling. However, in subsequent rulings where the Court applied the test, Justice Chandrachud applied the doctrine to limit Parliament’s powers.