Basic Structure Doctrine’s Evolution
- Contest between:- Article 13 (Laws that violates FR can be declared null and void) and Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution)
- Between Supremacy of Judiciary vs Parliament
- Locus → Judicial interpretation of Land Reform Laws
- Contest between :-
- Community Rights: Land Acquisition vs Individual Right to Property
- Supremacy of Parliament vs Supremacy of the Judiciary
- Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles of State Policy
- Socialistic Policies: Land Reforms vs Capitalist Policies: Large Estate
- Liberty vs Equality
What are some important Articles / provisions with respect to the Judgements
- Art. 13(2) → law that violates rights in Part III → null & Void
- Art. 368 → Procedure and Power to Amend Constitution
- Art. 39(b), 39(c) → Equitable distribution of wealth & prevention of wealth in Hands of few
- 9th Schedule → Added by 1st CAA; exempted from Judicial Review
Shankari Prasad vs Union of India
- Can Parliament Amend Constitution?
- Article13 → Any law that takes away Part 3 shall be void
- Outcome: Amendment NOT ordinary Law; Parliament Can Amend C / Takeaway FR
- Article 368 > Article 13; Parliament > Judiciary
Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan
- Context : 17th CAA → Property can be confiscated even if it violates Article 14, 19, 21
- Article13 → Any law that takes away Part 3 shall be void
- Upheld the verdict of Shankari Prasad [ 368>13]
Golaknath vs State of Punjab
- Context: 1st CAA, 4rth CAA, 17th CAA
- Outcome #1 → Parliament has no power to abridge of take away FRs ; [ Art 368 > Art 13]
- Outcome #2 → Constitutional Amendment = ordinary law ; restricted under Art. 13(2)
- Outcome #3 – Art 368 only provides procedure of amendment; does not confer power to amend
- Govt Reaction → 24th CAA ; Article 13(2) not applicable to CAA [ 368>13]
Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala
- Context: Land Acquisition under Kerala Land Reforms Act
- Outcome #1 → Recognized Parliament Power to Amend Any Part of Constitution/ Art 368 = procedure + power to amend Constitution.
- Outcome #2 → Constitutional Amendment = ordinary law; restricted under Art. 13(2)
- Govt Reaction → 24th CAA; Article 13(2) not applicable to CAA [ 368>13]
Raj Narain Case vs Indira Nehru Gandhi
- Context: Raj Narain → Indira Gandhi → Electoral malpractice → Election Void
- Govt Reaction → 39th CAA → No Power to decide on Electoral Disputes
- Judgement #1 → Power to Amend Constitution Accepted, Pass Laws with retrospective effect
- Govt Reaction → Swaran Singh Committee & 42nd CAA
42nd CAA – Mini Constitution
- 31C: Laws to implement 39(b)&(c) DPSP not void if violates FRs → changed to “ANY” DPSP
- All past amendment & future amendment → not within scope of judicial review
Minerva Mills vs Union of India
- What happened? Minerva Mill → nationalized (private property → public / national property)
- Case moved from → infringement of fundamental right → wider questions of Parliament’s power to amend
- Judgement #1 → 31C Amendment null & void; harmony b/w FR and DPSP → basic feature
- Judgement #2 → power to Amend is a limited power
Waman Rao vs Union of India
- What happened? Private Property & Land Acquisition Case in Maharashtra; placed in 9th Schedule
- Judgement #1 → Acts placed in 9th Schedule after Keshavananda → within Judicial review
Conclusion
- Power to Amend → Limited Power, subject to basic structure
- 9th Schedule → Subject to Judicial Review
- Power to Amend → Take away Fundamental Rights