Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Kesavananda Bharati Verdict (1973), Basic Structure
Mains level: Read the attached story
Central Idea
- The Supreme Court of India released a video in 10 Indian languages, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment delivered on April 24, 1973.
- The Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case is a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law, redefining the relationship between Parliament and the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
- Basic Structure Doctrine: The judgment introduced the basic structure doctrine, asserting that the Constitution has an inherent framework that cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments.
- 7-6 Decision: The Supreme Court, in a narrow decision, established its authority to invalidate constitutional amendments violating this basic structure.
- Key Outcomes:
- Limitation on Parliamentary Power: The doctrine restricts Parliament’s ability to amend key constitutional features like the separation of powers.
- Judicial Review Reinforcement: It built upon the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, allowing for the review of amendments affecting the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Article 31-C and Judicial Review: The Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 31-C’s first provision, stating that amendments implementing Directive Principles, which do not disturb the basic structure, are not subject to judicial review.
Criticism of the Basic Structure Doctrine
- Dilution of Parliamentary Powers: Critics argue that the doctrine undermines parliamentary sovereignty and disrupts the separation of powers.
- Ambiguity Concerns: The doctrine’s perceived vagueness and subjectivity in judicial review have also been points of contention.
Landmark Cases Involving the Doctrine
- Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975): The Court applied the Kesavananda doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment, which sought to immunize the elections of top officials from judicial scrutiny.
- Minerva Mills Ltd vs. Union of India (1980): The Court invalidated a clause in Article 368, asserting that Parliament’s constituent power had no limitations.
- P Sambamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1986): The Court struck down part of the 32nd Amendment related to the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal in Andhra Pradesh.
- L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997): The Court nullified a portion of the 42nd Amendment that established administrative tribunals and excluded High Court judicial review.
Significance of the Judgment and the Doctrine
- Empowerment of Judicial Review: The doctrine underpins the judiciary’s authority to review and potentially override constitutional amendments by Parliament.
- Clarification of Article 368: It distinguishes Article 368 as a procedural mechanism for amendment, not a power to alter the Constitution’s core or basic structure.
- Harmony with Legislative Authority: Justice Shastri emphasized that judicial review is a constitutional duty, not an attempt to undermine legislative power.
- Checks and Balances System: The Kesavananda Bharati verdict underscored that judicial review serves as a check and balance, ensuring constitutional functionaries remain within their prescribed limits.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024