Maarg Manthan · Topic 9.5

Basic Structure Doctrine and Limits on the Amending Power (Kesavananda Bharati Case)

Indian Polity › Constitutional Amendment · Topic 9.5

The basic structure doctrine, from Kesavananda Bharati (1973), allows Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution but not its basic structure. Minerva Mills (1980) held a limited amending power and judicial review to be basic features.

6 min read · UPSC Prelims · Polity · Constitutional Amendment

At a Glance

What it is The judge-made limit that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure while amending the Constitution
Case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Later cases Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1980), I.R. Coelho (2007)
Status Basic structure not exhaustively defined
Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Constitutional Amendment

Where Does It Fit?

This is the fifth topic of the category on Constitutional Amendment. Article 368 does not mention the basic structure. The doctrine came from the Supreme Court and now sets the outer limit of Parliament’s amending power.

How Did the Doctrine Emerge?

The question whether Fundamental Rights can be amended came before the Court within a year of the Constitution coming into force. In Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964), the Court held that “law” in Article 13 does not include constitutional amendment acts. In Golak Nath (1967) it reversed and held that an amendment is a law and cannot take away rights. Parliament responded with the 24th Amendment Act (1971). In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Court overruled Golak Nath, upheld the 24th Amendment and held that Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Applying the Doctrine

The doctrine was reaffirmed in Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975), where the Court struck down a provision of the 39th Amendment that placed election disputes of the Prime Minister and the Speaker outside the courts. Parliament then enacted the 42nd Amendment (1976), inserting clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368: no amendment can be questioned in any court on any ground, and there is no limit on Parliament’s constituent power. In Minerva Mills (1980) the Court invalidated these clauses because they excluded judicial review, a basic feature, and said that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature: the donee of a limited power cannot convert it into an unlimited one. In Waman Rao (1980) the Court clarified that the doctrine applies to amendments after 24 April 1973.

Elements of the Basic Structure

The Supreme Court is yet to define what constitutes the basic structure. From various judgments, the elements that have emerged include:

Case	Elements declared
Kesavananda Bharati (1973)	Supremacy of the Constitution; separation of powers; republican and democratic form; secular character; federal character; sovereignty and unity of India; freedom and dignity of the individual; mandate to build a welfare state; parliamentary system
Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975)	Equality of status and opportunity; secularism and freedom of conscience; rule of law; judicial review; free and fair elections
Minerva Mills (1980)	Limited power of Parliament to amend; judicial review; harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
S.R. Bommai (1994)	Federalism; secularism; democracy; unity and integrity of the nation; social justice; judicial review
I.R. Coelho (2007)	Rule of law; separation of powers; principles underlying the Fundamental Rights; judicial review; principle of equality

The Essence of the Ruling

The majority view in Kesavananda Bharati was that the word “amendment” in Article 368 implies a power to change the Constitution but not to damage or destroy its identity. The power to amend is wide, but it does not include the power to abrogate the Constitution or to alter its framework. The Court therefore upheld the 24th Amendment, which had said that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments and that Parliament can amend any provision, but it added that this power stops at the basic structure. The judgment was delivered by a bench of thirteen judges, the largest ever in the Supreme Court, and it did not give a list of what the basic structure contains.

Why the Doctrine Matters

The doctrine turned the Supreme Court into the guardian of the Constitution’s identity. Any amendment, including one that places a law in the Ninth Schedule, can be tested against the basic structure. In I.R. Coelho (2007) the Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure or Fundamental Rights. The doctrine continues to be applied case by case, because the Court adds to the list as new questions arise, which is why the list is called illustrative.

Why Is This Topic Important?

Limit on Parliament The doctrine is central to every polity paper
List of elements Elements and the cases that declared them are asked in Prelims
Case chain The order of cases is a standard question

What Came Next?

The next topic covers significant constitutional amendments, from the 1st to the 103rd.

Key People and Terms

Basic structure Features Parliament cannot alter by amendment
Constituent power The amending power under Article 368
Donee of a limited power The phrase used in Minerva Mills for Parliament’s amending power
Waman Rao Case fixing 24 April 1973 for the doctrine
I.R. Coelho 2007 case on the Ninth Schedule and the basic structure

Exam Corner

Points to Remember

Kesavananda Bharati: 1973; overruled Golak Nath.
Indira Nehru Gandhi: 1975; Minerva Mills: 1980.
Limited amending power is itself a basic feature.
Doctrine applies to amendments after 24 April 1973.

Do Not Confuse With

Golak Nath and Kesavananda Golak Nath barred amending rights; Kesavananda allowed it except for the basic structure
24th and 42nd Amendments The 24th removed amendments from Article 13; the 42nd tried to bar judicial review
Basic structure and entire Constitution Only the basic structure is protected

Memory Hook

Amend what you wish, but leave the skeleton: Kesavananda’s gift to the Constitution.

Mains Angle

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

Judicial creation Not in the text of Article 368
Open list The Court has not defined it exhaustively
Parliament’s reaction 42nd Amendment clauses were struck down in Minerva Mills
Reach Applies to Ninth Schedule and later amendments

A Question You May Face

An original practice question, not a past paper question.

“Examine the basic structure doctrine as a limit on Parliament’s amending power.”

How to Answer

Introduction Article 368 and the question of limits.
Cases Golak Nath to Minerva Mills.
Elements Illustrative list.
Conclusion Open-ended but binding.

GS Relevance

Prelims: Indian Polity, amendment, basic structure. GS Paper 2: Judiciary and Parliament.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the basic structure doctrine?

It is the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) that Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy its basic structure.

Is the basic structure defined in the Constitution?

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 and free and fair elections have emerged from its various judgments over the years.

What did Minerva Mills decide on the amending power?

It invalidated clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, because they excluded judicial review. The Court held that a limited amending power is a basic feature and Parliament cannot make it unlimited.

From which date does the doctrine apply to amendments?

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

Which case struck down a provision about the Prime Minister’s election dispute?

The Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975) struck down clause (4) of Article 329A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment and which kept election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker outside the courts.

PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis

1 The basic structure doctrine was laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

True

It overruled Golak Nath.

2 Minerva Mills held clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 valid.

False

It invalidated them.

3 The Court has fully defined the basic structure.