Relevance : GS Paper II ( Polity & Governance)
Why has this issue cropped up?
Challenges have been made to the recently introduced 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides for reservations based on economic criteria in government jobs and education.
Introduction
It has now been more than 45 years since the Supreme Court ruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited, that the Constitution’s basic structure was infrangible.
Criticism of basic structure doctrine
- The common criticism is that the doctrine has no basis in the Constitution’s language. The phrase “basic structure”, it’s argued, finds no mention anywhere in the Constitution.
- It’s detractors also believe the doctrine accords the judiciary a power to impose its philosophy over a democratically formed government, resulting in something akin to a “tyranny of the unelected”.
Significance of the Basic Structure
- To reject the doctrine altogether because the judiciary sometimes botches its use is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- The basic structure is legitimate in that it is deeply rooted in the Constitution’s text and history.
- It also possesses substantial moral value in that it strengthens democracy by limiting the power of a majoritarian government to undermine the Constitution’s central ideals.
- There are dangers inherent in granting untrammelled power to the legislature.
- Parliament is a creature of the Constitution. It could not, therefore, make changes that had the effect of overthrowing or obliterating the Constitution itself.
Conclusion
The basic structure doctrine is not only grounded in the Constitution’s text and history, but that it also performs an important democratic role in ensuring that majoritarian governments do not destroy the Constitution’s essential character.
