According to the Constitution of India, Parliament and the state legislatures have power to make laws within their respective jurisdiction. This power, though, is not absolute in nature. The judiciary is given by the Constitution powers to determine the constitutional validity of all laws which means that the Supreme Court(SC) has the power to declare any law invalid or “ultra vires” if it violates any provision of the Constitution. Our founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be an adaptable document instead of a rigid framework for governance. Hence, Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and its Procedure) gave power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution. But the Parliament could not distort, damage or alter the basic features of the Constitution under the excuse of amending it with the intention that the original ideas which were envisioned by the constitution-makers are preserved. Thus, the doctrine through which certain features of the Constitution are beyond the limit of the powers of amendment by Parliament is called the “Basic Structure” doctrine. No part of the Constitution can be so amended by Article 368 that it “alters the basic structure” of the Constitution or any constitutional amendment that violates the ‘basic structure’ would be invalid.
The phrase “Basic Structure” was introduced in the landmark case of Golaknath v.State of Punjab[1] for the first time in 1967 where the SC held that the Parliament has no power to amend Part III(Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution as the rights given are “transcendental and immutable”. According to the SC decision, Article 368 only lays down amendment procedure of the constitution and does not give the Parliament absolute powers to amend any part of the Constitution, but it was only in 1973 that the concept raised in the case Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala[2] . The SC upheld the validity of the 24th Constitution Amendment Act by reviewing its decision in the Golaknath case. It was held that the Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution, but the basic structure of the Constitution is to be preserved. Though the Apex Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be repealed even by a constitutional amendment but it still did not give any clear definition of basic structure. After the declaration of the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in the case of Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, it was in the case of Minerva Mills vs Union on India[3] which involved a further analysis of the basic structure in the context of the limitations to the amending powers of the Parliament and the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles of the state policy.
Minerva Mills Ltd. is a limited company dealing in textiles in Karnataka. On August 1970, the Central Government, after extensive production fall in the company, under section 15 of the Industries (Development Regulation) Act,1951 appointed a committee. This was to make a full and complete enquiry of the activities of the company as they believed that there had been or was likely to be significant fall in the volume of production. The appointed Committee submitted its report in January, 1971 to the Central Government, on the basis of which the Government passed an order on October 19, 1971 under section 18A of the 1951 Act, permitting the National Textile Corporation Ltd., to take over the administration of the Mills on the ground that its activities are being managed in a manner highly harmful to public interest. This undertaking was then nationalized and the Central Government took over the company under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings Act of 1974.
In this case, the validity of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act,1976 was challenged on the ground that the clauses inserted are destructive of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down the clauses (4) and (5) of the Article 368 on the same ground. The court ruled that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution. The historical judgment of this case laid down that: The amendment made to Article 31C by the 42nd Amendment is invalid as it damaged the essential features of the Constitution. Clauses (4) and (5) are invalid on the ground that they violate two basic features of the Constitution which is limited nature of the power to amend the constitution and judicial review. The courts cannot be deprived of the power of judicial review. The procedure given in Clause (2) is mandatory. If there is no compliance between the amendment passed and the procedure, then it would be invalid. The Judgment thus makes it clear that the Constitution is supreme not the Parliament. Parliament cannot have unrestricted amending power so as to damage or destroy the Constitution to which it owes its existence and from where it also derives its power. The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy should be complementary to each other and there should be no conflict between them. Certainly, Part IV is a part of the Constitution. Even though the Directives are not enforceable, Article 37 clearly mentions that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles. An unjustified importance on civil freedoms and rights in total disregard of the need to bring about social and economic justice, may lead to a mass disorder. Similarly any importance on the Directive Principles alone, in total disregard of the rights and freedoms, may lead to dictatorship. Hence, a harmonious balance should be maintained between Part III and Part IV and the real combination should come out only from harmonizing the spirit of economic democracy with the spirit of political democracy.
This case validated the ‘basic structure’ doctrine by highlighting the importance of the balance between fundamental rights and DPSP as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This case also broadened the concept of the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution which has safeguarded the survival of the fundamental features over which the constitution is based upon.
The court also reiterated the judgment in Kesavananda case holding that the power of Parliament to amend the constitution under Article 368 is of restrictive nature. The court relied on the explanation of Basic Structure that the circumstantial features can be changed but the basic features cannot be changed.
Basic structure of the Constitution is of key importance as it prevents the Parliament from having absolute power and becoming the principal of Law itself. It has now emerged in certainty that the struggle between Parliament and Judiciary is that the constitutional amendments and all the laws are subject to judicial review and laws that violates the basic structure are likely to be struck down. Substantially, Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute or unconditional and the Supreme Court is the final negotiator and interpreter of all constitutional amendments.
Finally, the Basic Structure of the constitution reiterates that nothing is above the Constitution, neither the Parliament nor the Judiciary.
[1] Golaknath v State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762(India)
[2] Kesavnanda Bharati v Union of India, (1973) 4 SCC 225(India)
[3] Minerva Mills v Union of India, (1980)AIR SC 1789
Eduindex News 