Roadmap for Answer Writing

1. Introduction (100-120 words)

• Definition of the Doctrine: Introduce the doctrine of basic structure, which was established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
• Context: Mention the need for constitutional amendments as per Article 368, but highlight the concern that unrestricted amendments could undermine the Constitution’s core principles.
• Purpose: State that this doctrine was introduced to ensure that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the Constitution.

2. Significance of the Doctrine of Basic Structure (200-250 words)

Discuss why the doctrine of basic structure is essential for preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution.

a. Prevents Political Abuse of Power

• The doctrine acts as a check on the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, preventing the ruling majority from altering its essential features to serve political interests.
• Example: The Minerva Mills case (1980) reinforced that Parliament cannot amend or dilute the basic structure of the Constitution, ensuring that core principles like democracy and the rule of law remain intact.
• Source: Supreme Court judgment, Minerva Mills case (1980).

b. Upholds Core Constitutional Principles

• The doctrine ensures that vital elements such as the separation of powers, federal structure, and rule of law are preserved. It prevents the undermining of the federal character of the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary.
• Example: The S.R. Bommai case (1994) upheld the federal nature of the Constitution, declaring that the power of the Union cannot be used to destroy the federal structure.
• Source: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).

c. Protects Democracy

• The doctrine helps to protect democracy by restricting attempts to establish a totalitarian regime. It ensures that constitutional values cannot be easily altered by a simple majority in Parliament.
• Example: It ensures the protection of fundamental rights and the principle of judicial review.
• Source: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).

3. Limitations of the Doctrine of Basic Structure (200-250 words)

Critically evaluate the limitations and challenges of applying the doctrine of basic structure.

a. Vagueness and Ambiguity

• One of the major criticisms of the basic structure doctrine is its vagueness and lack of clear definition. The concept of “basic structure” is not explicitly defined, which makes its application open to interpretation by different courts.
• Example: The Waman Rao case (1981) clarified that the doctrine would be applied prospectively, but the ambiguity around what constitutes the “basic structure” leads to inconsistent judicial interpretations.
• Source: Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981).

b. Judicial Overreach

• Critics argue that the doctrine gives the Judiciary excessive power, leading to judicial overreach. The judiciary, by having the power to strike down amendments, might undermine the role of Parliament and potentially override democratic decisions.
• Example: The doctrine allows the Supreme Court to review constitutional amendments, which some argue shifts the balance of power from the legislature to the judiciary.
• Source: Legal scholars and judicial critics.

c. Lack of Legislative Clarity

• Since the Parliament cannot amend the “basic structure” of the Constitution, this leaves a gap in clarity between what is amendable and what is not. This uncertainty can create legal challenges and confusion about the extent of constitutional amendments.
• Example: In some instances, the Parliament has been limited in amending certain provisions due to judicial intervention, leading to debates over the scope of legislative power.
• Source: Various legal analyses and critiques.

4. Conclusion (100-120 words)

• Summarize the significance: The doctrine of basic structure is critical for maintaining the Constitution’s core values, protecting democracy, and preventing misuse of power by the legislature.
• Highlight limitations: However, its vagueness and potential for judicial overreach remain key concerns that challenge the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.
• Call for Balance: Conclude by stating that while the doctrine is essential, its application must be cautious and carefully balanced to avoid excessive judicial intervention and ensure that democratic principles are upheld.

Relevant Facts with Sources

1. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
   • Source: Supreme Court of India
   • Fact: The Supreme Court held that the Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution through amendments under Article 368.
2. Minerva Mills Case (1980)
   • Source: Supreme Court of India
   • Fact: The Court ruled that Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy the Constitution’s basic structure, particularly the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
3. S.R. Bommai Case (1994)
   • Source: Supreme Court of India
   • Fact: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the federal nature of the Constitution as part of its basic structure, preventing any unilateral changes by the central government.
4. Waman Rao Case (1981)
   • Source: Supreme Court of India
   • Fact: The Court held that the application of the basic structure doctrine was prospective, limiting challenges to constitutional amendments post-Kesavananda.
5. Judicial Overreach Criticism
   • Source: Various legal scholars
   • Fact: Critics argue that the basic structure doctrine gives too much power to the judiciary, creating an imbalance between the legislative and judicial branches.

This roadmap provides a structured approach to discussing the significance and limitations of the doctrine of basic structure, with specific facts and legal sources that can be used to support the answer.