How does the concept of 'basic structure' limit the powers of Parliament in amending the Constitution, and what cases have established this doctrine?

Detailed Legal Analysis

The concept of 'basic structure' limits the powers of Parliament in amending the Constitution by establishing that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed even by a constitutional amendment under Article 368.

The doctrine of 'basic structure' emerged from significant judicial pronouncements that emphasized the need to preserve the foundational principles of the Constitution. The landmark case that established this doctrine is the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.

• Basic Features Identified: The Supreme Court, in various judgments, has identified several features that constitute the basic structure, including:
  • Supremacy of the Constitution
  • Rule of Law
  • Separation of Powers
  • Judicial Review
  • Fundamental Rights
  • Federalism
  • Parliamentary Democracy
• Limitations on Amendments: The Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, but it must respect the basic structure doctrine. If an amendment is found to violate this doctrine, it can be struck down by the judiciary.
• Subsequent Cases: Several other cases have reinforced the basic structure doctrine, including:
  • Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court reiterated that the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure.
  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The judgement emphasized gender equality as part of the basic structure.
  • Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court declared the practice of Triple Talaq unconstitutional, reinforcing the basic structure regarding gender justice.

This doctrine acts as a safeguard against arbitrary amendments that might undermine the foundational ethos and values of the Constitution, ensuring that the essential framework remains intact despite the evolving socio-political landscape.