Author(s): Dr. Richa

Abstract: The basic structure theory has been integral part of any discussion on constitutional issues and the role of the judiciary even though the theory has no textual basis in the Constitution. Its roots can be traced to the early 1950s. In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not curtail fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In 1973, a 13-judges Constitution Bench ruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala that Article 368 of the Constitution does not enable Parliament to amend the basic framework of the Constitution. The historic ruling came to be known as the “basic structure” doctrine - a judicial principle that the Constitution has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments by Parliament. Over the years, various facets of the basic structure doctrine have evolved, forming the basis for judicial review of Constitutional amendments.The term ‘basic structure’ was first used by lawyer M.K Nambyar in I.C. Golak Nath. Basing his arguments off a principle expounded by German thinker Dieter Conrad, Mr. Nambyar contended that Parliament had no power to amend the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. It was, however, a few years later that the concept was outlined in a Supreme Court ruling.Almost 50 years after it was propounded, the legitimacy of the term “basic structure” and the theory underpinning its doctrinal creation is still seen as an abstract idea in certain quarters, as it is missing from the text of the Constitution. Some legal stalwarts consider this basic structure of the constitution to be an imprecise and elastic concept because the basic features illustrated in the five judgments delivered by the majority in Kesavananda do not tally. Since half a century has gone, the enunciation of this theory has withstood the test of time and strengthened the foundations of our Constitution.

Pages: 40-43 | Views: 185 | Downloads: 75

Download Full Article: Click Here