(i) Introduction:
The doctrine of basic structure forms the bedrock of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Introduced by the
Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this judicial principle
asserts that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute. The Court held
that while amendments are permissible, they must not alter or destroy the "basic structure" of the Constitution
- a term not explicitly defined in the text itself. Over the years, this doctrine has served as a crucial check on
constitutional amendments that threaten democratic values, judicial independence, or the rule of law.
However, despite its significance, the lack of a precise definition and judicial variance in interpretation has led
to scholarly debates on its scope and potential limitations.
(ii) Review of Literature:
1. M.P. Jain - Indian Constitutional Law: Comprehensive commentary on Article 368 and the historical
development of the doctrine.
2. D.D. Basu - Commentary on the Constitution of India: An authoritative interpretation of constitutional
provisions and doctrinal boundaries.
3. H.M. Seervai - Constitutional Law of India: A critical and often skeptical view of the doctrine, questioning
its judicial legitimacy.
4. Granville Austin - Working a Democratic Constitution: Offers context on constituent assembly debates and
the moral foundation of the Constitution.
5. A.G. Noorani & Upendra Baxi: Academic articles exploring judicial creativity, constitutionalism, and
democratic accountability.
6. Journal Sources: NUJS Law Review, Indian Journal of Constitutional Law - provide recent academic
discourse and critiques of Supreme Court judgments post-I.R. Coelho.
(iii) Aims and Objectives of the Research:
- To trace the genesis and evolution of the basic structure doctrine through Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
- To analyze the essential features identified by the judiciary as comprising the "basic structure."
- To examine the limitations of the doctrine from a legal, constitutional, and philosophical perspective.
- To study the balance between judicial activism and parliamentary supremacy in the context of constitutional
amendments.
- To compare India's basic structure doctrine with constitutional frameworks in Germany, Bangladesh, and
other jurisdictions.
- To propose reformative insights that may help crystallize the scope and application of the doctrine.
(iv) Research Questions:
1. What historical and legal circumstances led to the evolution of the basic structure doctrine?
2. What core principles have the Indian judiciary recognized as forming the basic structure of the
Constitution?
3. Does the doctrine undermine or reinforce the concept of separation of powers and constitutional
democracy?
4. How have other constitutional democracies addressed limits to their amending powers?
5. Can or should the basic structure doctrine be codified to ensure consistency in its application?
(v) Scope of the Research:
This research is confined to the Indian constitutional framework with selective references to comparative
constitutional law. It focuses solely on judicial decisions interpreting Article 368 and the basic structure
doctrine. It does not delve into political narratives or extra-constitutional ideologies. The temporal scope spans
from the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) to recent rulings such as the NJAC and Electoral Bonds cases.
(vi) Hypothesis:
The doctrine of basic structure, while instrumental in safeguarding the Constitution's fundamental values,
suffers from definitional ambiguity and evolving judicial interpretation, potentially resulting in inconsistent
application and tension between the legislature and judiciary.
(vii) Research Methodology:
This study is based on doctrinal legal research, employing both primary and secondary sources.
- Primary Sources: Constitutional provisions, landmark Supreme Court judgments, Constituent Assembly
Debates.
- Secondary Sources: Scholarly commentaries, peer-reviewed journals, law commission reports, comparative
constitutional studies.
- Methodology: Analytical and critical method; comparative analysis of doctrines of constitutional
immutability in Germany and Bangladesh.
The research shall avoid empirical methods, relying instead on jurisprudential and normative assessments.
(viii) Tentative Chapterization:
Chapter 1: Introduction and Theoretical Framework
Chapter 2: Judicial Birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine
Chapter 3: Expansion and Consolidation of the Doctrine
Chapter 4: Scope and Limitations of the Doctrine
Chapter 5: Comparative Constitutional Perspective
Chapter 6: Summary and Suggestions
