The Basic Structure doctrine is a constitutional principle that has been enshrined in India’s legal framework, which holds that there are certain fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be amended by the legislature. These features are considered to be the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, and they are therefore beyond the reach of amendment.
The Basic Structure doctrine was first established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973. The Supreme Court of India ruled that although the Constitution did not explicitly limit the power of the Parliament to amend it, there were certain basic features of the Constitution that could not be amended. These features include the sovereignty of India, the democratic character of the polity, the secular nature of the Constitution, the federal character of the Constitution, and the rule of law.
Get the full solved assignment PDF of BPSC-132 of 2022-23 session now. Click here to download and guarantee top marks! Plus, browse our store for solved assignments of all IGNOU courses.
Proponents of the Basic Structure doctrine argue that it serves as a crucial check against authoritarianism and ensures that the Constitution remains true to its founding values. It has also been argued that this doctrine helps to protect the rights of citizens and prevent the erosion of democratic institutions. However, critics argue that the Basic Structure doctrine gives too much power to the judiciary and undermines the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which is a core tenet of democratic governance.
Furthermore, critics suggest that the doctrine is too vague and subjective, which makes it open to interpretation. The lack of clarity in the definition of the basic structure of the Constitution has led to a situation where judges have the discretion to strike down any constitutional amendment that they deem to be contrary to the basic structure.
In conclusion, while the Basic Structure doctrine has been instrumental in preserving India’s democratic character, it is not without its flaws. A delicate balance must be maintained between the need for stability and the need for flexibility in constitutional design. The judiciary must exercise caution and ensure that its interpretation of the Constitution does not undermine the principles of democracy and parliamentary sovereignty.