Emergence of the Basic Structure

• The question of whether Fundamental Rights could be amended under Article 368 was raised shortly after the Constitution's enactment.
• Shankari Prasad Case (1951): The Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The word 'law' in Article 13 was interpreted to exclude constitutional amendment acts, allowing Parliament to abridge or remove Fundamental Rights via constitutional amendments.
• Sajjan Singh Case (1964): The Supreme Court reaffirmed its stance from the Shankari Prasad case, holding that constitutional amendment acts under Article 368 are not 'law' within the meaning of Article 13.
• Golak Nath Case (1967): The Supreme Court reversed its previous stance, ruling that Fundamental Rights hold a 'transcendental and immutable' position and cannot be abridged or taken away by Parliament. Constitutional amendment acts were deemed 'law' under Article 13, thus void if violating Fundamental Rights.
• 24th Amendment Act (1971): Enacted in response to the Golak Nath case, this act amended Articles 13 and 368, declaring Parliament's power to abridge or remove Fundamental Rights under Article 368, with such acts not considered 'law' under Article 13.
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Supreme Court overruled the Golak Nath case but upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act. It introduced the 'basic structure' doctrine, stating that Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 does not allow it to alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975): The Supreme Court reaffirmed and applied the basic structure doctrine, invalidating a provision of the 39th Amendment Act (1975) that removed election disputes involving the Prime Minister and Speaker of Lok Sabha from court jurisdiction, as it affected the basic structure.
• 42nd Amendment Act (1976): Parliament attempted to negate the basic structure doctrine by amending Article 368 to declare unlimited constituent power, preventing challenges to amendments in any court.
• Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Supreme Court invalidated the amendment introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act. It upheld the 'basic structure' doctrine with respect to Article 368, stating that the limited amending power is a basic feature of the Constitution.
• Waman Rao Case (1980): The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of basic structure and clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (date of Kesavananda Bharati Judgement).

Elements of the Basic Structure

• The Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368, but cannot affect the 'basic structure.'
• The Supreme Court has not definitively clarified what constitutes the 'basic structure,' but various judgements have identified elements:
  1. Supremacy of the Constitution
  2. Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity
  3. Secular character of the Constitution
  4. Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary
  5. Federal character of the Constitution
  6. Unity and integrity of the nation
  7. Welfare state (socio-economic justice)
  8. Judicial review
  9. Freedom and dignity of the individual
  10. Parliamentary system
  11. Rule of law
  12. Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
  13. Principle of equality
  14. Free and fair elections
  15. Independence of Judiciary
  16. Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
  17. Effective access to justice
  18. Principles (or essence) underlying fundamental rights
  19. Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142
  20. Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227

Evolution of the Basic Structure of the Constitution

Sl. No.	Name of the Case (Year)	Elements of the Basic Structure (As Declared by the Supreme Court)
1	Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)	1. Supremacy of the Constitution, 2. Separation of powers, 3. Republic and democratic form of government, 4. Secular character of the constitution, 5. Federal character of the constitution, 6. Sovereignty and unity of India, 7. Freedom and dignity of the individual, 8. Mandate to build a welfare state, 9. Parliamentary System
2	Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975)	1. India as a sovereign democratic republic, 2. Equality of status and opportunity, 3. Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion, 4. Government of laws and not of men (Rule of Law), 5. Judicial review, 6. Free and fair elections
3	Minerva Mills Case (1980)	1. Limited power of Parliament to amend the constitution, 2. Judicial review, 3. Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles
4	Central Coal Fields Ltd. Case (1980)	Effective access to justice
5	Bhim Singhji Case (1980)	Welfare State
6	S.P. Sampath Kumar Case (1986)	1. Rule of law, 2. Judicial review
7	P. Sambamurthy Case (1986)	1. Rule of law, 2. Judicial review
8	Delhi Judicial Service Association Case (1991)	Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 136, 141 and 142
9	Indra Sawhney Case (1992)	Rule of law
10	Kumar Padma Prasad Case (1992)	Independence of judiciary
11	Kihoto Hollohan Case (1992)	1. Free and fair elections, 2. Sovereign, democratic, republican structure
12	Raghunath Rao Case (1993)	1. Principle of equality, 2. Unity and integrity of India
13	S.R. Bommai Case (1994)	1. Federalism, 2. Secularism, 3. Democracy, 4. Unity and integrity of the nation, 5. Social justice, 6. Judicial review
14	L. Chandra Kumar Case (1997)	Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227
15	Indra Sawhney II Case (1999)	Principle of equality
16	All India Judge's Association Case (2001)	Independent judicial system
17	Kuldip Nayar Case (2006)	1. Democracy, 2. Free and fair elections
18	M. Nagaraj Case (2006)	Principle of equality
19	I.R. Coelho Case (2007)	1. Rule of law, 2. Separation of powers, 3. Principles underlying fundamental rights, 4. Judicial review, 5. Principle of equality
20	Ram Jethmalani Case (2011)	Powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32
21	Namit Sharma Case (2012)	Freedom and dignity of the individual
22	Madras Bar Association Case (2014)	1. Judicial review, 2. Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227