Golaknath case – 1967
- This time, the court overturned its previous decision that claims of Fundamental Rights can be repealed.
- It argued that the Fundamental Rights are not subject to parliamentary restrictions as enunciated in Article 13 and if it were sought by Parliament to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be needed.
- It was also said that Article 368 provides a procedure for amendment of the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament any power to alter it.This case conferred upon Fundamental Rights a ‘transcendental position’.
- The majority judgement called upon the concept of implied limitations on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. As per this view, the Constitution gives a place of permanence to the fundamental freedoms of the citizens.
- In giving to themselves the Constitution, the people had reserved these rights for themselves.
- The top court decided that Parliament can’t take away or lessen any of the Basic Rights.
- The Court said that the basic rights cannot be changed to put Directive Principles into action.
- To the 1967 High Court decision in the Golaknath Case, this government response took form as a two law measures christened; The 24 th Amendment Act (1971)
- Under its 24th Amendment Act, the government could restrict or erase any of your fundamental rights by adopting laws called Constitutional Amendments.
- The 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C which contained the following two provisions: No law that tries to put into action the socialist ideas in Article 39 (b) and (c) will be useless just because it goes against fundamental rights given by Article 14, Article 19 or Article.
Basic Structure Doctrine of Indian Constitution
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a foundation stone in comprehending the vitality and plastic nature of our Constitution. This doctrine, established by the Indian Supreme Court serves as a guiding principle. It protects Constitution’s basic structure against amendments that might change its essential concepts. But defining the core of Basic Structure Doctrine reveals the crux of India’s constitutional spirit and its promise to defend democratic values, rights, and rule by law. This article discusses the Basic Structure Doctrine in India, a constitutional principle that limits Parliament’s power to amend fundamental aspects of the Constitution, preserving its core principles.
Table of Content
- Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine
- Evolution of the Basic Structure Concept
- Shankari Prasad Case – 1951
- Berubari Union Case – 1960
- Sajjan Singh Case -1965
- Golaknath case – 1967
- 24th Constitution Amendment Act – 1971
- Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala – 1973
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case – 1975
- 42nd Amendment Act – 1976
- Minerva Mills case -1980
- Waman Rao Case (1981)
- Indra Sawhney versus Union of India – 1992
- Kihoto Hollohan Case -1993
- S.R. Bommai case – 1994
- Significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine
- Criticisms of Basic Structure Doctrine