The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), represents a significant development in constitutional jurisprudence. This doctrine places limits on the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by asserting that certain essential features or principles of the Constitution are immutable and cannot be altered even through constitutional amendments.

Evolution of the Doctrine
Background to Kesavananda Bharati Case:

The case arose in the context of constitutional amendments made by the Parliament that sought to curtail judicial review and expand its own powers.
The central issue was whether there are any inherent limitations on the amending power of Parliament.
Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court, through a historic 7-6 majority decision, held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not unlimited.
The Court asserted that Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution that form its core foundation.
Key Features of the Basic Structure:

The exact components of the basic structure have not been exhaustively defined but typically include:
Supremacy of the Constitution: Including the supremacy of the Constitution over other laws and organs of the state.
Democratic and Republican Nature: Including free and fair elections, representative democracy, and republican form of government.
Secularism: India’s commitment to secularism as enshrined in the Constitution.
Federalism: The distribution of powers between the Centre and the states.
Separation of Powers: The division of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality.
Impact on Parliament’s Amending Power:

The Kesavananda Bharati case established that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that violates or destroys its basic structure.
Amendments that seek to alter the basic structure can be subjected to judicial review, and if found to be in conflict with the basic structure, they can be declared unconstitutional and void.
Limitations Imposed on Parliament
Judicial Review: The doctrine empowers the judiciary to review constitutional amendments, ensuring they do not undermine the core principles of the Constitution.

Consensus Building: Parliament must garner broad consensus and justify any amendments that might impact the basic structure, fostering a more deliberative and careful approach to constitutional changes.

Stability and Continuity: The doctrine provides stability and continuity to the constitutional framework, preventing abrupt or radical changes that could undermine the foundational principles of the Republic.

Criticisms and Interpretations
Scope of Basic Structure: Critics argue that the doctrine’s scope remains vague, leading to potential judicial overreach or subjectivity in determining what constitutes the basic structure.

Impact on Democratic Processes: Some argue that the doctrine limits the democratic will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.

Conclusion
The doctrine of the basic structure, as evolved through the Kesavananda Bharati case, stands as a bulwark against arbitrary constitutional amendments that threaten the foundational principles of India’s democracy. It has shaped constitutional interpretation and limited the Parliament’s amending power by affirming that certain core features of the Constitution are sacrosanct and cannot be altered without judicial scrutiny and justification. This doctrine ensures the enduring resilience and integrity of India’s constitutional framework while balancing the need for flexibility and adaptability in response to evolving societal needs and challenges.