Indian Constitution

Model Answers

Significance of the Doctrine of Basic Structure

The doctrine of basic structure, established in the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), plays a crucial role in preserving the core values of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and cannot be used to alter its fundamental framework. This doctrine protects against the politicization of the Constitution by preventing any ruling majority from undermining constitutional principles.

Key Significance:

1. Prevents Totalitarianism: The doctrine acts as a safeguard against the potential misuse of power by the ruling government. In Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court held that the Parliament cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic features through amendments.
2. Separation of Powers: It ensures that the separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary is upheld, preventing any one organ from interfering in the others’ functions.
3. Federalism: In the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal structure of the Constitution is part of its basic structure, thereby protecting Centre-State relations.

Limitations of the Doctrine of Basic Structure

Despite its significance, the basic structure doctrine has limitations:

1. Vagueness: The doctrine is often criticized for being vague and undefined, leading to inconsistent judicial interpretations.
   • Source: Waman Rao v. Union of India (1980) – The doctrine is applied prospectively, meaning amendments made before April 24, 1973 (Kesavananda case) cannot be challenged.
2. Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that it gives the Judiciary excessive power, allowing courts to overstep into legislative functions and sit as “super-legislators” rather than focusing on constitutional validity.
   • Source: Judicial critique in various legal analyses.

In conclusion, while the doctrine serves as a vital shield protecting constitutional values, its application must be careful to avoid judicial overreach and maintain balance among the three branches of government.

By following this roadmap, the answer is structured to cover both the significance and limitations of the doctrine of basic structure, providing a balanced analysis of its impact on the Indian Constitution.

Model Answer

The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the First Amendment of the Indian Constitution in 1951, primarily to protect certain laws from judicial scrutiny. It was designed to safeguard land reform laws and other legislations aimed at achieving social and economic justice, aligning with the government’s welfare objectives. The inclusion of the Ninth Schedule allowed for laws dealing with land reforms, abolition of zamindari, and redistribution of land to be insulated from challenges based on the violation of fundamental rights (FR). This was particularly important in the post-independence period, when various state and central governments were enacting legislation to promote social and economic welfare in the face of entrenched landholding structures.

Judicial Review of Laws in the Ninth Schedule

Initially, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including placing laws in the Ninth Schedule, as seen in the case of Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951). The Court held that such amendments could not be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. The Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1964) case further reaffirmed this stance, upholding the 17th Amendment that placed land acquisition laws in the Ninth Schedule.

However, this position shifted in I.C. Golaknath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1967), where the Court ruled that any constitutional amendment abridging fundamental rights was void. The landmark decision in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) established the “basic structure” doctrine, asserting that no amendment could alter the Constitution’s basic structure, though it did not specifically address the Ninth Schedule.

The case of Waman Rao vs. Union of India (1981) provided a crucial distinction: laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before April 24, 1973, were immune to judicial review, but those added after that date were subject to it. This was further reinforced by the I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), where the Court ruled that any law added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, could be reviewed for its constitutionality.

Conclusion

The Ninth Schedule was introduced with the objective of protecting land reform laws and advancing social justice, but over time, the judiciary has developed a more nuanced approach to its review, balancing legislative intent with the protection of fundamental rights.