Maarg Manthan · Topic 6.14

Basic Structure Doctrine and Fundamental Rights (Golaknath, Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills Cases)

Indian Polity › Fundamental Rights · Topic 6.14

The basic structure doctrine, from Kesavananda Bharati (1973), allows Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights but not its basic structure. The cases from Shankari Prasad to Minerva Mills shaped it.

6 min read · UPSC Prelims · Polity · Fundamental Rights

At a Glance

What it is The doctrine that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but not its basic structure
Cases Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1964), Golak Nath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Minerva Mills (1980)
Core ruling Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Fundamental Rights case
Present position Fundamental Rights can be amended, but not if the basic structure is damaged
Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Fundamental Rights

Where Does It Fit?

This is the last topic of the category on Fundamental Rights. It answers a central question: can Parliament amend the Fundamental Rights? The answer developed through a series of Supreme Court cases and Parliament’s responses, and it produced the doctrine of the basic structure.

Can Fundamental Rights Be Amended?

The question came before the Supreme Court within a year of the Constitution coming into force. In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), which challenged the First Amendment Act (1951) that curtailed the right to property, the Court ruled that Parliament’s power under Article 368 includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights, since “law” in Article 13 means only ordinary laws and not constitutional amendments. The Sajjan Singh case (1964) affirmed this.

In the Golak Nath case (1967), which challenged the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), the Court reversed its stand. It held that the Fundamental Rights have a “transcendental and immutable” position, that Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of them, and that a constitutional amendment is a law under Article 13. By applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Court left the 1st, 4th and 17th Amendments valid.

Parliament Responds: 24th and 25th Amendments

Parliament reacted with the 24th Amendment Act (1971), which amended Articles 13 and 368 to declare that Parliament can abridge or take away any Fundamental Right and that an amendment is not a law under Article 13. The 25th Amendment Act (1971) inserted Article 31C, protecting laws that implement Article 39(b) and (c).

Kesavananda Bharati (1973): The Basic Structure

In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), popularly called the Fundamental Rights case, the Court overruled Golak Nath. It held that Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any provision of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights, except the basic structure. It upheld the 24th Amendment and the first part of Article 31C, and struck down the second part. The ruling meant that Parliament cannot abridge or take away a Fundamental Right that forms part of the basic structure. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine in the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975), striking down a provision of the 39th Amendment that kept election disputes of the Prime Minister and the Speaker outside the courts.

Parliament reacted with the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), which inserted clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368: no amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground, and there was no limit on Parliament’s constituent power.

Minerva Mills (1980) and Waman Rao (1980)

In the Minerva Mills case (1980) the Court invalidated those clauses because they excluded judicial review, a basic feature. It held that since the Constitution conferred a limited amending power, Parliament cannot, under that power, enlarge it into an absolute power. In the same case it held that the Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, like two wheels of a chariot, and that this harmony is an essential feature of the basic structure. It also invalidated the extension of Article 31C to all Directive Principles. In Waman Rao (1980) the Court clarified that the doctrine applies to amendments made after 24 April 1973, the date of Kesavananda.

Case	Year	Ruling on amending Fundamental Rights
Shankari Prasad	1951	Parliament can amend; an amendment is not a law under Article 13
Sajjan Singh	1964	Same view re-affirmed
Golak Nath	1967	Parliament cannot amend; amendment is a law under Article 13
Kesavananda Bharati	1973	Parliament can amend, but not the basic structure
Minerva Mills	1980	Limited amending power and judicial review are basic features

What Is in the Basic Structure?

The present position is that Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, but without affecting the basic structure. The Supreme Court is yet to define what the basic structure is. From various judgments, elements that have emerged include supremacy of the Constitution, sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the polity, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, unity and integrity of the nation, welfare state, judicial review, freedom and dignity of the individual, parliamentary system, rule of law, harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, principle of equality, free and fair elections, independence of the judiciary, limited amending power of Parliament, effective access to justice, the principles underlying the Fundamental Rights, and the powers of the Supreme Court and the high courts under Articles 32, 136, 141, 142, 226 and 227.

Why Is This Topic Important?

Limits on Parliament The doctrine decides what Parliament may and may not amend
Most-asked case chain The order of cases and amendments is a standard Prelims question
Link to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles Minerva Mills explains the present balance

What Came Next?

The next category covers the Directive Principles of State Policy, beginning with their definition and non-justiciable nature.

Key People and Terms

Basic structure Features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot alter
Prospective overruling A ruling that applies only to the future
Constituent power The power to amend the Constitution
24th Amendment Declared that an amendment is not a law under Article 13
Judicial review Power of courts to test laws and amendments, a basic feature

Exam Corner

Points to Remember

Order: Shankari Prasad 1951, Sajjan Singh 1964, Golak Nath 1967, Kesavananda 1973, Minerva Mills 1980.
Kesavananda: amend any part except the basic structure.
Waman Rao: cut-off 24 April 1973.
Minerva Mills: limited amending power, judicial review and FR-DP balance are basic features.

Do Not Confuse With

Golak Nath and Kesavananda Golak Nath said no amendment of rights; Kesavananda allowed it except for the basic structure
24th and 42nd Amendments The 24th said an amendment is not a law under Article 13; the 42nd tried to bar all review
Basic structure and Fundamental Rights Not all rights are basic structure; only those forming part of it are protected

Memory Hook

Amend yes, destroy no: Kesavananda gave Parliament the pen but kept the Constitution’s skeleton.

Mains Angle

Questions on this topic usually ask how the basic structure limits Parliament. Use these points to add depth.

Evolution From Shankari Prasad to Kesavananda Bharati, the Court shifted from no limit to the basic structure limit
Parliament’s reaction The 24th, 25th and 42nd Amendments tried to restore Parliament’s power
Minerva Mills Limited power and judicial review cannot be removed
Open elements The Court has not fully defined the basic structure

A Question You May Face

An original practice question, not a past paper question.

“Trace the evolution of the basic structure doctrine from Golak Nath to Minerva Mills.”

How to Answer

Introduction The question of amending rights.
Early cases Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, Golak Nath.
Doctrine Kesavananda and Indira Nehru Gandhi.
Conclusion Minerva Mills and the balance of rights and directives.

GS Relevance

Prelims: Indian Polity, Fundamental Rights, amendment. GS Paper 2: Parliament, judiciary and constitutional limits.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the basic structure doctrine?

The doctrine, laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), says Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368, including the Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. It limits the amending power.

What did the Golak Nath case decide?

In 1967 the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights have a transcendental and immutable position, that Parliament cannot abridge or take them away, and that a constitutional amendment is a law under Article 13. It applied prospective overruling.

How did Parliament respond to Golak Nath?

Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act (1971), which amended Articles 13 and 368 and declared that it could abridge any Fundamental Right under Article 368 and that an amendment is not a law under Article 13. The 25th Amendment inserted Article 31C.

What did Minerva Mills decide?

In 1980 the Supreme Court invalidated clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, because they excluded judicial review and gave unlimited amending power. It also held that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is a basic structure element.

What is the Waman Rao cut-off date?

In Waman Rao (1980), the Supreme Court held that the basic structure doctrine applies to constitutional amendments enacted after 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, so earlier amendments are not tested by it.

Is the basic structure defined?

No. The Supreme Court is yet to define or clarify what constitutes the basic structure. Elements such as judicial review, rule of law, federalism, secularism, free and fair elections and the independence of the judiciary have emerged from various judgments.

PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis

1 In Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court overruled the Golak Nath case.

True

It held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights except the basic structure.

2 The Shankari Prasad case held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

False

It held that Parliament can amend them.

3 The Minerva Mills case upheld the 42nd Amendment clauses that barred judicial review.