By Pawan Kumar
“The Constitution is not a mere lawyer’s document; it is a vehicle of Life, and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.”
—Dr BR Ambedkar
These prophetic words by the chief architect of the Indian Constitution hold enduring relevance as we mark 52 years of one of its most significant judicial inventions—the Basic Structure Doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court on April 24, 1973, in the historic Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala verdict.
A democratic system often hides its strongest safeguards in plain sight. The Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to alter the Constitution’s core features, is one such foundational pillar—an invisible yet powerful guardian of constitutional integrity.
THE CURIOUS CASE THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING
The case originated from a challenge by Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edneer Math in Kerala, against the state’s land reforms law, which seized the Math’s land and placed it under the Ninth Schedule—shielding it from judicial scrutiny.
What began as a property rights dispute evolved into the most significant constitutional case in India’s history. A record 13-judge bench was formed. In a narrow 7:6 decision, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its “basic structure”.
This principle was not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but was drawn out by judicial interpretation to prevent any government from distorting the core ideals of the republic, such as:
- Supremacy of the Constitution.
- Rule of Law.
- Separation of Powers.
- Independence of the Judiciary.
- Federalism.
- Secularism.
- Fundamental Rights.
Paradoxically, Kesavananda Bharati lost his individual case—but India’s democracy won. The ruling set a global precedent and marked a shift from a purely procedural to a transformative constitutionalism.
BEFORE KESAVANANDA: A LEGAL EVOLUTION
The doctrine didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It was preceded by judicial tussles over constitutional amendments:
- Shankari Prasad vs Union of India (1951) upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights.
- Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965) raised doubts about unchecked amendment powers.
- Golak Nath vs State of Punjab (1967) reversed the earlier rulings, stating that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, leading to the 24th Amendment, which restored Parliament’s amending power.
A DOCTRINE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Today, the doctrine is more relevant than ever. While the Emergency era is behind us, India now grapples with modern challenges—centralisation of authority, surveillance, institutional capture, and identity-based polarization.
In this environment, the Basic Structure Doctrine functions not just as a legal principle, but a philosophical safeguard against democratic backsliding. It ensures democracy does not descend into mere majoritarianism, and that institutional checks, minority rights, and rule of law remain inviolable.
Despite criticism—that it places too much power in the hands of unelected judges—it has never obstructed meaningful constitutional reform. India has witnessed over 105 constitutional amendments, and the Doctrine has been invoked sparingly—only when core principles were at risk.
LASTING LEGACY
Fifty-two years on, the Basic Structure Doctrine continues to serve as a constitutional compass. It affirms that liberty, justice, equality, and secularism are not negotiable, even by overwhelming majorities.
As India moves towards its centenary of Independence and its Constitution in 2047, the doctrine stands as a quiet sentinel—unseen, perhaps uncelebrated, but indispensable. “Though we may not always see it, we are better because it is there.”
—The writer teaches at Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida
The post The Quiet Sentinel appeared first on India Legal.