On April 24, 1973, the Indian Judiciary introduced the concept of the "Basic Structure" doctrine through its ruling in the Keshavananda Bharati case. This doctrine serves to impose constraints on the Parliament's authority to amend the Indian Constitution, specifically ensuring that alterations to the "Basic Structure of the Constitution" cannot be made through its "constituent power" as defined in Article 368 of the Indian constitution.

The "Basic Structure" doctrine, while not explicitly articulated within the constitution, was formally acknowledged for the very first time in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973. This judicial innovation delineates specific elements of the Indian constitution as being outside the scope of the parliament's amending powers.

Genesis of the Doctrine of Basic Structure?

Since gaining independence, the Supreme Court of India has continuously adjusted and refined its position regarding the Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution. The development of the Basic Structure doctrine can be traced back to the issue of the right to property and the inaugural Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951.

• Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951):
• In 1951, the Supreme Court ruled in the Shankari Prasad case that the Parliament, under Article 368, possessed the authority to modify any aspect of the constitution, including fundamental rights.
• Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1965):
• The Supreme Court reaffirmed its Shankari Prasad judgment in 1965, asserting that Parliament could indeed amend any part of the constitution under Article 368. However, a concurring opinion by Justices Hidyatullah and Mudholkar introduced doubts regarding the unrestricted power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and limit citizens' fundamental rights.
• Golak Nath vs. State Of Punjab Case (1967):
• In the Golaknath case of 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier stance in the Shankari Prasad case, ruling that Article 368 merely outlined the procedure for amending the constitution and did not grant absolute authority to Parliament to amend any constitution section.
• 24th Constitution Amendment Act (1971):
• To overcome the limitations imposed by the Golaknath judgment, the government passed the 24th amendment act in 1971. This amendment introduced a provision to Article 368, stating that Parliament had the authority to curtail fundamental rights and required the President's assent for all Constitution Amendment bills.
• Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973):
• In this landmark case, the Supreme Court validated the 24th Constitution Amendment Act while affirming that Parliament retained the power to amend any constitutional provision. However, the Court introduced the concept of the "Basic Structure of the Constitution," emphasizing that it must be preserved during amendments.
• 42nd Amendment Act (1976):
• In 1976, the government enacted the 42nd Amendment Act, asserting that there were no restrictions on the Parliament's constituent power under Article 368. This "Mini-constitution" brought about extensive constitutional changes and prohibited the courts from questioning constitutional amendments.
• Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980):
• In this case, the Supreme Court invalidated provisions of the 42nd CAA and ruled that Parliament could not eliminate the power of 'judicial review' as it constituted a part of the 'Basic Structure.'
• Waman Rao vs. Union of India (1981):
• This case introduced the 'Doctrine of Prospective Overruling,' stipulating that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda judgment could not be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights. However, post-judgment laws could be contested in court.
• Indra Sawhney & Others vs. Union of India (1992):
• Known as the Mandal case, the Supreme Court declared the Rule of Law as a Basic Structure of the constitution.
• Kihoto Hollohan Case (1993):
• Commonly referred to as the Defection case, the Supreme Court included Free and fair elections, Sovereign, Democratic, and Republican structures as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994):
• The Supreme Court affirmed Federalism, Secularism, and Democracy as integral components of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Elements Of Basic Structure

While the doctrine of the basic structure is not precisely defined, the judiciary has elucidated its boundaries and framework through its interpretations. Over time, this basic structure has evolved by incorporating new elements. Consequently, the Supreme Court has not yet provided a definitive and exhaustive definition of the constitution's basic structure.

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian Polity
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary
• Federal character of the Constitution 
• Unity and integrity of the nation
• Welfare state (socio-economic justice) 
• Judicial review
• Freedom and dignity of the individual
• Parliamentary system
• The rule of law
• Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
• Principle of equality
• Free and fair elections
• Independence of Judiciary
• Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
• Principles (or essence) underlying fundamental rights
• Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142.
• Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.

Significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine?

• Advances Constitutional Ideals: The Basic Structure Doctrine endeavors to uphold the constitutional principles and fundamental ideals envisioned by the nation's founding fathers.
• Preserves Constitutional Supremacy: This doctrine plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution, preventing its potential erosion by a transient parliamentary majority.
• Fosters Separation of Powers: The Basic Structure Doctrine reinforces our democratic system by ensuring a clear separation of powers, with the Judiciary maintaining its independence from the other two branches of government.
• Granville Austin contends that the Basic Structure Doctrine strikes a balance between the roles of Parliament and the Supreme Court in safeguarding the intricate fabric of the Indian Constitution.
• Safeguards Fundamental Rights: The Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a bulwark, shielding the fundamental rights of citizens from legislative arbitrariness and authoritarianism.
• Promotes the Constitution as a Living Document: Embracing its dynamic nature, this doctrine makes the constitution more adaptable and open to evolving with the times, rendering it a living document.

Criticisms of the Doctrine of Basic Structure?

• Undermines Separation of Powers: A robust system of checks and balances thrives when each branch maintains its designated roles, with the judiciary possessing the authority to review amendments but not to rewrite them.
• Lack of Clarity in Defining Basic Structure: The ambiguity surrounding the definition of the Basic Structure of the Constitution contributes to its vagueness and elusive nature.
• Transforms the Judiciary into a De Facto Legislative Chamber: The invocation of the Basic Structure doctrine can transform the Judiciary into a de facto third legislative chamber, potentially diminishing the significance of Parliament's work.
• Instances of Judicial Overreach: Recently, this doctrine has been employed in cases perceived as instances of judicial overreach. For example, the Supreme Court nullified the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act of 2014 by relying on this doctrine.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the decision to employ the basic structure doctrine rests within the Supreme Court's purview. In recent times, there have been cases of significant relevance to Indian society where challenges to the basic structure doctrine were raised, yet the Court opted not to invoke the doctrine in its ultimate rulings.