The evolution of the basic structure doctrine in the Constitution of India can be traced through key judicial pronouncements and landmark cases. Here is a chronological overview of the evolution of the basic structure:
- Shankari Prasad Case (1951): The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, without any limitation.
- Sajjan Singh Case (1965): The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated the view from the Shankari Prasad case and upheld the constitutional validity of the First Amendment, which imposed restrictions on fundamental rights.
- Golaknath Case (1967): In this significant case, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament does not have the power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368. It declared that the power of amendment does not extend to destroy the basic structure or the essential features of the Constitution.
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): This landmark case marked a turning point in the evolution of the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court, in a closely divided judgment, ruled that Parliament’s amending power is not unlimited and does not extend to changing the basic structure of the Constitution. It recognized that certain essential features of the Constitution form its basic structure and cannot be amended.
- Indira Gandhi’s Case (1975): In this case, the Supreme Court held that even a constitutional amendment can be subjected to judicial review if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. It reinforced the concept of the basic structure as a limit on the amending power.
- Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Supreme Court, in this case, further elaborated on the basic structure doctrine and held that the Parliament’s amending power is subject to judicial review. It emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between the constituent power of amendment and the essential features of the Constitution.
- Waman Rao Case (1981): In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that not all provisions of the Constitution are part of the basic structure. Only those provisions that are fundamental and essential, forming the core framework, cannot be amended.
- L. Chandra Kumar Case (1997): The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by any constitutional amendment.
- Keshavananda Bharti Revisited (2018): The Supreme Court, in this case, reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and held that the Kesavananda Bharati case judgment, which established the basic structure doctrine, remains valid.
The evolution of the basic structure doctrine has progressively strengthened the limitations on the amending power of the Parliament, safeguarding the essential features and principles of the Constitution from arbitrary changes. It has provided a mechanism for judicial review and protection of the core values and structure of the Constitution, ensuring its stability and continuity while allowing for necessary amendments to adapt to changing times.