The Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution has enhanced the power of judicial review of the Supreme Court. Examine. (2022, 15 Marks)
The Constitution established constitutional supremacy, not parliamentary sovereignty: under Articles 13, 32 and 226 courts could always void laws and executive acts violating it. What they could not touch was an amendment; Shankari Prasad (1951) held the constituent power immune. The basic structure doctrine of Kesavananda Bharati (1973) removed that immunity. The claim is therefore true of the reach of review, but qualified by how sparingly the power has been used.
How the Doctrine Enlarged Review
- A new object: the constituent power. Amendments became reviewable, and some fell: the 39th Amendment’s shield for the Prime Minister’s election (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975); the 42nd Amendment’s Articles 368(4)–(5) and wider Article 31C (Minerva Mills, 1980); the exclusion of High Courts from tribunal matters (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997); and the 99th Amendment creating the NJAC (2015, 4:1).
- Review entrenched. Minerva Mills and L. Chandra Kumar made judicial review itself a basic feature, so Parliament cannot amend it away.
- Wider reach. Waman Rao (1981) and I. R. Coelho (2007) ended the Ninth Schedule‘s blanket immunity for laws inserted after 24 April 1973. S. R. Bommai (1994) tested Article 356 proclamations against federalism and secularism.
- Interpretive authority. Because the list of features is open, the Court decides what the Constitution’s identity is. In NJAC it used that authority on its own appointments, over a near-unanimous Parliament and sixteen ratifying states; Justice Jasti Chelameswar dissented, finding the collegium’s opacity the greater threat to independence.
Limits on the Enhancement
- Confined object. Since Indira Gandhi (1975) and Kuldip Nayar (2006), ordinary laws are in principle tested against specific provisions, not the basic structure as such.
- Rarity. Of 106 amendments, only a handful have fallen on this ground, none since 2015.
- Restraint in recent cases. Janhit Abhiyan (2022, 3:2) upheld the 103rd Amendment‘s EWS quota. In re Article 370 (2023) examined the presidential orders for vires and mala fides under Article 370 itself, not against federalism as a basic feature, and left J&K’s reduction to Union Territories undecided on the Union’s assurance of statehood. Dr. Balram Singh (2024) upheld “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble.
- Self-discipline. Coelho requires each feature to be traced to the text and scheme; ADM Jabalpur (1976) showed that the doctrine is not self-executing when judges will not use it.
- Scholarly doubt. Gautam Bhatia argues that the recent Court defers through delay and evasion, so a formally vast power can coexist with timid use.
Assessment
The doctrine answered the counter-majoritarian worry of Alexander Bickel with the logic of delegated power: a Parliament created by the Constitution cannot destroy it. Yet it transferred the final word on constitutional identity to the Court, which Jagdeep Dhankhar, as Vice-President (he resigned in July 2025), denounced in January 2023 as a wrong precedent.
Conclusion
The doctrine has enhanced judicial review in scope and finality: no organ now escapes it, and it cannot be amended away. In practice it works as a reserve power, whose deterrent effect on Parliament matters more than the few amendments it has struck.