Indian Polity Notes Class-2 "Basic Structure Doctrine"

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