Theory of Basic Structure of Constitution

Image Credit: www.legalbites.in

Landmark Judgments: 

Shankari Prasad Case:

The question whether fundamental rights can be amended under Article 368 came for consideration in the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad case. In this case validity of constitution (1st amendment) act, 1951 which inserted inter alia, articles 31-A and 31-B of the constitution was challenged. The amendment was challenged on the ground that it abridges the rights conferred by Part III and hence was void. The Supreme Court however rejected the above argument and held that power to amend including the fundamental rights is contained in Article 368 and the same view was taken by court in Sajjan Singh case.

Golak Nath Case:

In Golak Nath case, the validity of 17th Amendment which inserted certain acts in Ninth Schedule was again challenged. The Supreme Court ruled the parliament had no power to amend Part III of the constitution and overruled its earlier decision in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh case. In order to remove difficulties created by the decision of SC in Golak Nath case parliament enacted the 24th Amendment act.

Kesavanand Bharati Case:

The Supreme Court recognized BASIC STRUCTURE concept for the first time in the historic Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. Ever since the Supreme Court has been the interpreter of the Constitution and the arbiter of all amendments made by parliament. In this case validity of the 25th Amendment act was challenged along with the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-ninth Amendments. The court by majority overruled the Golak Nath case which denied parliament the power to amend fundamental rights of the citizens. The majority held that Article 368 even before the 24th Amendment contained the power as well as the procedure of amendment. The Supreme Court declared that Article 368 did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and parliament could not use its amending powers under Article 368 to 'damage', 'emasculate', 'destroy', 'abrogate', 'change' or 'alter' the 'basic structure' or framework of the constitution. This decision is not just a landmark in the evolution of constitutional law, but a turning point in constitutional history.

Thanks for reading till the end. Please follow and share this blog.