Basic Structure Doctrine
Indian Polity › Basic Concepts · Topic 2.7
The basic structure doctrine, laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), says Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter its basic structure. The Supreme Court lists the elements case by case.
8 min read · UPSC Prelims · Polity · Basic Concepts
At a Glance
- What it is The doctrine that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter its basic structure
- Laid down in The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
- Nature A judicially innovated doctrine; the Supreme Court has not defined the basic structure and lists elements case by case
- Applies to Constitutional amendments enacted after 24 April 1973 (Waman Rao case, 1980)
- Key follow-up cases Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1980)
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Basic Concepts
Where Does It Fit?
Judicial review gives the courts the power to examine laws. The basic structure doctrine shows how the Supreme Court used that power on Parliament’s amending power. It sets the one limit that Parliament cannot cross when it amends the Constitution.
How Did the Doctrine Emerge?
The question whether the Fundamental Rights can be amended by Parliament under Article 368 came before the Supreme Court within a year of the Constitution coming into force.
| Case | What the Supreme Court held |
|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad (1951) | Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The word “law” in Article 13 includes only ordinary laws, not constitutional amendment acts. The case challenged the First Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property. |
| Sajjan Singh (1964) | Re-affirmed that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is not a law within the meaning of Article 13. |
| Golak Nath (1967) | Reversed the earlier stand. Fundamental Rights have a “transcendental and immutable” position, so Parliament cannot abridge or take them away. A constitutional amendment is also a law under Article 13. The case challenged the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964). |
| 24th Amendment Act (1971) | Parliament’s reaction: amended Articles 13 and 368 to declare that Parliament can abridge or take away any Fundamental Right under Article 368, and that such an act is not a law under Article 13. |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Overruled Golak Nath and upheld the 24th Amendment, so Parliament can abridge or take away Fundamental Rights. At the same time it laid down the doctrine of the basic structure: Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975) | Reaffirmed and applied the doctrine. It invalidated a provision of the 39th Amendment Act (1975) that kept election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha outside the jurisdiction of all courts. |
| 42nd Amendment Act (1976) | Parliament’s reaction: amended Article 368 to declare that there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament, and that no amendment can be questioned in any court on any ground. |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | Invalidated that provision, because it excluded judicial review, a basic feature. The Court held that Parliament cannot, under Article 368, enlarge its limited amending power into an absolute power. |
| Waman Rao (1980) | Adhered to the doctrine and clarified that it applies to constitutional amendments enacted after 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda judgment. |
What Is the Present Position?
Parliament under Article 368 can amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, but without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution. This means that Parliament cannot abridge or take away a Fundamental Right that forms part of the basic structure.
The Supreme Court is yet to define or clarify what constitutes the basic structure. The elements have emerged from various judgments.
What Are the Elements of the Basic Structure?
From the various judgments, the following have emerged as basic features of the Constitution, or elements of its basic structure.
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Unity and integrity of the nation
- Welfare state (socio-economic justice)
- Judicial review
- Freedom and dignity of the individual
- Parliamentary system
- Rule of law
- Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
- Principle of equality
- Free and fair elections
- Independence of the judiciary
- Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
- Effective access to justice
- Principles (or essence) underlying fundamental rights
- Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142
- Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
Which Cases Declared Which Elements?
The elements were declared by the Supreme Court over a period of years. Some of the key declarations are given below.
| Case (year) | Elements declared |
|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Supremacy of the Constitution; separation of powers; republican and democratic form of government; secular character; federal character; sovereignty and unity of India; freedom and dignity of the individual; the mandate to build a welfare state; parliamentary system |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975) | Sovereign democratic republic; equality of status and opportunity; secularism and freedom of conscience and religion; rule of law; judicial review; free and fair elections |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution; 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 Fundamental Rights; judicial review; principle of equality |
Why Is This Topic Important?
- The limit on Parliament: It is the one boundary on the amending power under Article 368.
- Judge-made: It shows how the Supreme Court and Parliament reacted to each other, case by case and amendment by amendment.
- Direct Prelims material: The sequence of cases, the date 24 April 1973 and the list of elements are direct Prelims material.
What Came Next?
The next topics compare the parliamentary and presidential forms of government and the unitary and federal forms. Several of the basic-structure elements, such as the parliamentary system and the federal character, are taken up there and again in the later categories on the salient features.
Key People and Terms
- Basic structure The core features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot alter by an amendment
- Article 368 Parliament’s amending power
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) Laid down the doctrine; overruled Golak Nath
- Golak Nath case (1967) Held that Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable
- 24 April 1973 The date of the Kesavananda judgment from which the doctrine applies
- Limited amending power A basic feature, held in Minerva Mills (1980)
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Order of cases: Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1964), Golak Nath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1980).
- Golak Nath held Fundamental Rights cannot be amended; Kesavananda overruled it.
- The 24th Amendment (1971) answered Golak Nath; the 42nd Amendment (1976) answered Kesavananda.
- Minerva Mills struck down the 42nd Amendment’s clause excluding judicial review.
- The doctrine applies to amendments enacted after 24 April 1973.
- The Supreme Court has not defined the basic structure; it identifies elements case by case.
Do Not Confuse With
- Golak Nath and Kesavananda Bharati: The first said Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights; the second said it can, but not the basic structure.
- 24th Amendment and 42nd Amendment: The first reacted to Golak Nath; the second reacted to the basic structure doctrine.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi case and Minerva Mills case: The first struck down part of the 39th Amendment (1975); the second struck down part of the 42nd Amendment (1976).
Memory Hook
Shankari yes, Sajjan yes, Golak no, Kesavananda: yes, but not the basic structure.
Mains Angle
Questions usually ask how the doctrine balances Parliament’s power with constitutional limits. Use these points to add depth.
- A middle path: Kesavananda let Parliament amend Fundamental Rights, unlike Golak Nath, but set the basic structure as a limit.
- A dialogue between Parliament and the Court: The 24th Amendment responded to Golak Nath, and the 42nd Amendment responded to the basic structure doctrine, which Minerva Mills then struck down in part.
- An undefined list: The Supreme Court has not defined the basic structure, and the elements have emerged from various judgments.
- Judicial review at the centre: Judicial review appears among the elements declared in many cases and is itself a basic feature.
- Limited power as the limit: In Minerva Mills the Court held that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature, so Parliament cannot make it absolute.
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure.” Trace how the Supreme Court arrived at this position.
How to Answer
- Introduction: Article 368 gives Parliament the amending power; the question was whether it extends to Fundamental Rights.
- Evolution: Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh (yes), Golak Nath (no), 24th Amendment, Kesavananda Bharati (yes, but not the basic structure).
- Consolidation: Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975), the 42nd Amendment and Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1980) and the list of elements.
- Conclusion: Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution without affecting its basic structure, which the Court identifies case by case.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the basic structure doctrine?
The basic structure doctrine holds that Parliament, under Article 368, can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter its basic structure. The Supreme Court laid it down in the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.
In which case was the basic structure doctrine laid down?
The doctrine was laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973. The Supreme Court overruled the Golak Nath case, upheld the 24th Amendment, and ruled that the constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the basic structure.
What did the Golak Nath case (1967) decide?
In the Golak Nath case the Supreme Court reversed its earlier stand. It held that Fundamental Rights have a transcendental and immutable position, so Parliament cannot abridge or take them away, and that a constitutional amendment is also a law within the meaning of Article 13.
What is the basic structure of the Constitution?
The Supreme Court has not defined the basic structure. Its elements have emerged from various judgments, and include supremacy of the Constitution, judicial review, federal and secular character, separation of powers, rule of law and free and fair elections, among others.
What did the Minerva Mills case (1980) decide?
In the Minerva Mills case the Supreme Court invalidated the 42nd Amendment provision that excluded judicial review of amendments. It held that Parliament has only a limited amending power and cannot, under Article 368, enlarge it into an absolute power.
From which date does the basic structure doctrine apply?
In the Waman Rao case of 1980, the Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine applies to constitutional amendments enacted after 24 April 1973, the date of the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case. The Court said it adhered to the doctrine of the basic structure in this case.
How did Parliament respond to the Golak Nath case?
Parliament responded by enacting the 24th Amendment Act of 1971. It amended Articles 13 and 368 to declare that Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights under Article 368, and that such an act is not a law under Article 13.
What did the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975) decide?
In the Indira Nehru Gandhi case the Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine. It invalidated a provision of the 39th Amendment of 1975 that kept election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker outside the jurisdiction of all courts.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights at all.
It held that Parliament can abridge or take away Fundamental Rights, but not those that form part of the basic structure.
2 The Golak Nath case (1967) held that Fundamental Rights are in a transcendental and immutable position.
The Court held that a constitutional amendment is also a law under Article 13.
3 The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) declared that there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament.
The Minerva Mills case (1980) invalidated this provision because it excluded judicial review.
4 The Supreme Court has given an exhaustive definition of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is yet to define the basic structure; its elements have emerged from various judgments.
5 The basic structure doctrine applies to constitutional amendments enacted after 24 April 1973.
This was clarified in the Waman Rao case (1980).
Related Topics
Browse the full Indian Polity index