BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE

Shankari Prasad Case 1951

• Whether parliament can curtail FR under Article 368 was dealt under this case.
• Constitutional validity of First Amendment Act (1951) which curtailed Right to Property was challenged.
• Supreme Court: Under Article 368, Parliament can amend FR. Article 13 includes only ordinary law and not constitutional amendment law. Amendments abridging FR cannot be void under Article 13.

Golakh Nath Case 1967

• Seventeenth Amendment which inserted certain state laws in Ninth Schedule was challenged.
• Supreme Court: FRs are transcendental & immutable. Parliament can abridge or take away any FR. Constitutional Amendment Acts are laws under Article 13. So, any amendment violating FR would be void under Article 13.

• 24^th Amendment: Parliament can take away any FR under Article 368 and such acts are not laws under Article 13.

Kesavananda Bharati Case 1973

• Supreme Court overruled its judgment in Golakhnath Case (1967) and upheld 24^th Amendment.
• Basic Structure Doctrine was laid down by SC.
• Parliament cannot alter basic structure of the Constitution.
• Parliament cannot take away FR that forms Basic Structure Doctrine.

• Election disputes of PM and Speaker of LS kept outside the jurisdiction of court.

• Supreme Court: Invalidated 39^th Amendment. Judicial review is a basic structure.

• Amended Article 368. No limitations on constituent power of parliament and no amendment can be questioned in courts.

• Invalidated above changes under 42^nd Amendment.
• Judicial review is basic structure.

Waman Rao case 1981

• Again, the Supreme Court adhered to the doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ and clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati case).