Mains Daily Question
April 24, 2023

Discuss the significance of the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case and comment on its implications for Indian parliamentary sovereignty. 

 

Model Answer

Approach:

Introduction: Define basic structure doctrine and its origin in the Kesavananda Bharati case

Body: Highlight the significance of the Case
Explain how the case impacted the Indian parliamentary sovereignty.

Conclusion: Mention the need for a balanced and nuanced approach that respects individual rights and societal values.

Answer:

The Supreme Court’s 13 judges bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973 articulated the “doctrine of basic structure”. According to this doctrine, the Parliament cannot use its amending power under Article 368 to destroy the basic structure of the Indian constitution such as democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial independence, etc. The basic structure doctrine is a judicial principle that limits the power of the Parliament of India to amend the Constitution.

 

In this case, a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that while the Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot use this power to destroy or emasculate the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.

The significance of this case can be highlighted in the following points:

  • Established Supremacy of the Constitution: It established the supremacy of the Constitution over the Parliament and the executive and limited their power to amend the Constitution without affecting its basic features.
  • Protected Fundamental Rights: It preserved the democratic and federal nature of the Constitution and protected the rights and freedoms of the citizens from arbitrary or authoritarian amendments.
  • Judicial Review: It asserted the judicial review power of the Supreme Court to examine the validity of any constitutional amendment and strike it down if it violated the basic structure doctrine.
  • Primacy of Fundamental Rights over DPSPs: It resolved the conflict between the fundamental rights and the directive principles of state policy, and harmonized them by giving primacy to the former over the latter.
  • Judiciary power to define “basic structure”: It paved the way for subsequent judgments that expanded and enriched the basic structure doctrine, such as the Minerva Mills case (1980), which added secularism and judicial independence as basic features, and the Indira Gandhi case (1975), which invalidated the 39th Amendment that sought to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny.

 

Implications of the Case on Indian parliamentary sovereignty:

  • Asserted limited Parliamentary Sovereignty - It limited the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, by ruling that it cannot alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. This prevented the possibility of tyranny or dictatorship by Parliament, by ensuring that the core values and principles of the Constitution are preserved and protected.
    • The 42nd Amendment Act (1976), which inserted clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 to make constitutional amendments beyond judicial review and give unlimited power to Parliament, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills (1980), as it violated the basic structure.
  • It gave the Supreme Court the authority to decide whether a constitutional amendment violated the basic structure or not, on a case-by-case basis.
  • No exhaustive list -It listed some of the basic features of the Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, federalism, republicanism, independence of the judiciary, and power of judicial review by superior courts, but did not provide an exhaustive list.
  • It affirmed the dissenting opinions of Hidayatullah and Mudholkar in Sajjan Singh, who had questioned whether fundamental rights could be taken away by Parliament and had introduced the phrase "basic features" of the Constitution. (Not required)
  • Synthesis b/w Parliamentary Sovereignty & Judicial Supremacy - It established a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review, by recognising that Parliament has vast powers to amend the Constitution for public welfare, but not at the cost of its basic structure.
    • The 99th Amendment Act (2014), which established a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium system for the appointment of judges, was struck down by the Supreme Court in the NJAC case (2015), as it violated the basic structure by compromising judicial independence.

 

The basic structure doctrine is still an evolving concept in Indian constitutional law. It has been praised as a safeguard of constitutional values and democracy and condemned as a judicial usurpation of legislative power and an obstacle to social reform. The Keshavananda Bharati case is an important landmark in Indian constitutional law, and it highlights the need for a balanced and nuanced approach that respects both individual rights and the larger public interest.

Subjects : Current Affairs Polity
Only Students can submit Answer.