Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine
Elaboration (chronological)
Year | Case / Event | Holding |
|---|---|---|
1951 | Shankari Prasad v UoI | Parliament can amend any part, including FRs, under Art 368; "law" in Art 13 does not include constitutional amendments |
1955 | Sajjan Singh (1965) | Same view (3:2); Justice Mudholkar doubted if basic features can be amended |
1967 | Golaknath v State of Punjab | 11 judges, 6:5; Parliament cannot amend FRs; amendment is "law" under Art 13; prospective overruling applied |
1971 | 24th Amendment | Restored Parliament's power to amend FRs; Art 13(4) and Art 368(3) inserted; President must assent |
1971 | 25th Amendment | Art 31C: laws giving effect to DPSP (Art 39(b), (c)) cannot be challenged under Arts 14, 19, 31; right to property compensation curtailed |
1973 | Kesavananda Bharati | 13 judges, 7:6 (24 April 1973); Parliament can amend any provision but not basic structure; overruled Golaknath; upheld 24th; upheld first part of Art 31C, struck second part |
1975 | Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain | Struck down 39th Amendment (put PM's election beyond judicial scrutiny); applied basic structure; free and fair elections, rule of law |
1976 | 42nd Amendment | Added Art 368(4) and (5): no judicial review of amendments; Parliament's power unlimited |
1980 | Minerva Mills v UoI | Struck down Art 368(4), (5) and extended Art 31C to all DPSP; limited power to amend is itself basic structure; harmony of FRs and DPSP |
1981 | Waman Rao v UoI | Basic structure applies to amendments after 24 April 1973 (cut-off); 9th Schedule laws before that date valid |
1992 | Kihoto Hollohan | Judicial review of Speaker's decision under 10th Schedule; upheld 52nd Amendment (minus para 7) |
1994 | S.R. Bommai | President's Rule subject to judicial review; secularism and federalism are basic |
1997 | L. Chandra Kumar | Judicial review (Arts 32, 226) is basic structure; tribunals subject to HC review |
2007 | I.R. Coelho v State of TN | Laws in the 9th Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review on FR/basic structure grounds |
2015 | SC Advocates-on-Record Assn (4th Judges) | 99th Amendment/NJAC struck down; independence of the judiciary is basic |
2022 | Janhit Abhiyan | 103rd Amendment (EWS) upheld by 3:2 |
Logic of the evolution
- Phase 1 (1951-1964): Parliamentary supremacy over FRs.
- Phase 2 (1967): Judicial supremacy (Golaknath).
- Phase 3 (1971-73): Parliament vs Judiciary (24th/25th/Kesavananda); supersession of judges (Ray appointed CJI superseding three senior judges).
- Phase 4 (1975-80): Emergency-era reversal and restoration (Minerva Mills).
- Phase 5 (post-1980): Consolidation and expansion of basic features.
Key points to remember
- Order of cases: Shankari Prasad (1951) → Sajjan Singh (1965) → Golaknath (1967) → Kesavananda (1973) → Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975) → Minerva Mills (1980).
- Golaknath = 11 judges (6:5); Kesavananda = 13 judges (7:6).
- Prospective overruling = Golaknath.
- Minerva Mills struck down Art 368(4) and (5) inserted by the 42nd Amendment.
- Cut-off for 9th Schedule review: 24 April 1973 (Waman Rao; confirmed in Coelho).
PYQ / MCQ
1. The Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights in:
(a) Shankari Prasad
(b) Sajjan Singh
(c) Golaknath
(d) Minerva Mills
Answer: (c)
2. Which Amendment was introduced to nullify the Golaknath judgment?
(a) 24th
(b) 25th
(c) 42nd
(d) 44th
Answer: (a)
3. Which case struck down Art 368(4) and (5) inserted by the 42nd Amendment?
(a) Kesavananda
(b) Minerva Mills
(c) Waman Rao
(d) Bommai
Answer: (b)