Basic structure doctrine
The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.
- Align
- encenter
- Comment
- enThe basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.
- Has abstract
- enThe basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution. In Kesavananda, Justice Hans Raj Khanna propounded that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament of India. Key among these "basic features", as expounded by Justice Khanna, are the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals by the constitution. The doctrine thus forms the basis of the power of the Supreme Court of India to review and strike down constitutional amendments and acts enacted by the Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this "basic structure" of the Constitution. The basic features of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic" feature is determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional amendments had been that any part of the Constitution was amendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in Golaknath v. State of Punjab. It held that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a "transcendental position" and are beyond the reach of Parliament. It also declared any amendment that "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III as unconstitutional. In 1973, the basic structure doctrine was formally introduced with rigorous legal reasoning in Justice Hans Raj Khanna's decisive judgment in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Previously, the Supreme Court had held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was unfettered. However, in this landmark ruling, the Court adjudicated that while Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution. Although Kesavananda was decided by a narrow margin of 7–6, the basic structure doctrine, as propounded in Justice Khanna's judgement, has since gained widespread legal and scholarly acceptance due to a number of subsequent cases and judgments relying heavily upon it to strike down Parliamentary amendments that were held to be violative of the basic structure and therefore unconstitutional. Primary among these was the imposition of a state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975, and her subsequent attempt to suppress her prosecution through the 39th Amendment. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived as unprecedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amendment by the Indian National Congress' majority in central and state legislatures, proved that in fact such apprehension was well-grounded. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment and parts of the 42nd Amendment respectively, and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy. The Supreme Court's position on constitutional amendments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its "basic structure". The basic structure doctrine was rejected by the High Court of Singapore. It was initially also rejected by the Federal Court of Malaysia, but was later accepted by it. Conversely, the doctrine was initially approved in Belize by the Supreme Court.
- Hypernym
- Principle
- Is primary topic of
- Basic structure doctrine
- Label
- enBasic structure doctrine
- Link from a Wikipage to an external page
- www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1809/18090950.htm
- www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/legitimacy-of-the-basic-structure/article26168775.ece
- www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/const/the_basic_structure_of_the_indian_constitution.pdf
- Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
- 1980 Indian general election
- A. G. Noorani
- Abdulai Conteh
- Access to justice
- Ajit Nath Ray
- Amendments to the Constitution of India
- Banaras Hindu University
- Bangladesh
- Belize
- Belize Constitution (Eighth) Amendment Act 2011
- Belize Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Bill 2008
- Belize Telecommunications (Amendment) Act 2011
- Bowen v Attorney General
- British Caribbean Bank Ltd v AG Belize
- Caretaker government
- Case citation
- Category:Constitution of India
- Category:Judicial review
- Category:Legal doctrines and principles
- Charan Singh
- Chief Justice of Belize
- Chief Justice of India
- Chitto Jetha Bhayshunyo
- Common law
- Constitutionality
- Constitutional law
- Constitution of Bangladesh
- Constitution of India
- Constitution of Malaysia
- Constitution of Pakistan
- Democracy
- Dietrich Conrad
- Dignity
- Directive Principles
- Directive Principles in India
- Directive Principles of State Policy
- Economic justice
- Entrenched clause
- Equal justice under law
- Federal Court of Malaysia
- Federalism
- Federation
- Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India
- Forty-second amendment of the Indian Constitution
- Free and fair election
- Freedom
- Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India
- Fundamental rights in India
- Fundamental Rights in India
- Hans Raj Khanna
- High Court of Singapore
- I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
- India
- Indian Emergency
- Indian National Congress
- Indira Gandhi
- Judicial activism in India
- Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
- Judicial independence
- Judicial review
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
- Koka Subba Rao
- Landmark decision
- Legal doctrine
- Liberal democratic basic order
- Malaysia
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India
- M K Nambyar
- Nanabhoy Palkhivala
- National Assembly (Belize)
- Pakistan
- Parliamentary system
- Parliament of India
- Parliament of Pakistan
- Part XII
- Preamble to the Constitution of India
- Rabindranath Tagore
- Republic
- Rule of law
- Sarv Mittra Sikri
- Secular
- Secularism
- Separation of powers
- Social justice
- Sovereignty
- Supreme Court of Bangladesh
- Supreme Court of Belize
- Supreme Court of India
- Supreme Court of Judicature of Belize
- Supreme Court of Pakistan
- Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs
- The Emergency (India)
- Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India
- Uganda
- Welfare state
- Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud
- Quote
- en"Perhaps the position of the Supreme Court is influenced by the fact that it has not so far been confronted with any extreme type of constitutional amendments. It is the duty of the jurist, though, to anticipate extreme cases of conflict, and sometimes only extreme tests reveal the true nature of a legal concept. So, if for the purpose of legal discussion, I may propose some fictive amendment laws to you, could it still be considered a valid exercise of the amendment power conferred by Article 368 if a two-thirds majority changed Article 1 by dividing India into two States of Tamilnad and Hindustan proper? "Could a constitutional amendment abolish Article 21, to the effect that forthwith a person could be deprived of his life or personal liberty without authorisation by law? Could the ruling party, if it sees its majority shrinking, amend Article 368 to the effect that the amending power rests with the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister? Could the amending power be used to abolish the Constitution and reintroduce, let us say, the rule of a moghul emperor or of the Crown of England? I do not want, by posing such questions, to provoke easy answers. But I should like to acquaint you with the discussion which took place on such questions among constitutional lawyers in Germany in the Weimar period - discussion, seeming academic at first, but suddenly illustrated by history in a drastic and terrible manner."
- enAny amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.
- SameAs
- 4Vqia
- Doctrine de la structure fondamentale (Common law)
- m.0cxh6d
- Q4867055
- आधारभूत लक्षण का सिद्धान्त
- Source
- enLimitation of Amendment Procedures and the Constituent Power; Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 1966-1967, Madras, pp. 375-430
- 18090950.htm
- Subject
- Category:Constitution of India
- Category:Judicial review
- Category:Legal doctrines and principles
- Title
- enImplied Limitations of the Amending Power
- WasDerivedFrom
- Basic structure doctrine?oldid=1107172136&ns=0
- WikiPageLength
- 45190
- Wikipage page ID
- 4965534
- Wikipage revision ID
- 1107172136
- WikiPageUsesTemplate
- Template:Indian Constitution TOC
- Template:Law
- Template:Main
- Template:Quotation
- Template:Quote box
- Template:Reflist
- Template:Rp
- Template:Short description
- Template:SSRN