A constant irritant to power

Context:  In ‘Kesavananda Bharati’ case, the Supreme Court redefined the relationship between the judiciary,  executive and legislature and set limits on the amendments that can be made in the Constitution.

Significance of Keshavananda Bharati Case:

• The judgement is said to be the second most important text after the Constitution of India. 

• In Kesavananda Bharati case, relief was sought against the Kerala government vis-à-vis two state land reform laws (under 9th Schedule), which imposed restrictions on the management of the religious property. 

• It held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution as long as it did not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.

• It was claimed as the ‘God’s decision’ by the late Keshavananda Bharti: The seer lost the battle but won the war because the amending power was made subject to the basic structure. 

Evolution of Basic Structure and Essential Features (B.S.S.F.) doctrine

• Animated by theological fervour: 

• The vast powers cannot be misused by the Parliament in the name of the welfare of masses. – Justice Y V Chandrachud

• Supreme Court as a last resort: B.S.S.F. maintains its importance because of the Supreme Court as the “last resort for the oppressed and the bewildered citizens of India. 

• Balancing the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: 

• This question arose in cases like Raj Narain and Waman Rao, where Parliament wanted to accord primacy to D.P.S.P. over Fundamental Rights.

•  The Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1980 SC 1789) - ‘Judicial review’ and balance between the Fundamental Rights and the D.P.S.P.s was held to be a fundamental feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Consequently, the Parliament deleted the Right to Property under Article 31 of the Constitution and made it a mere legal right, without being challenged by the Court.

• Restrictions binding the Supreme Court’s decision: 

• It is bound by the Golden Triangle of Article 14,19 and 21
• The Court must derive the “spirit” of the Constitution and also understand its “democratic responsibility” while using the basic structure doctrine.

• Not a leeway for judicial overreach but a judicial duty: as the Court has not obstructed the tasks of just development and governance. 

• But to be a “constant irritant” to untrammelled power is the very essence of judicial duty.

Conclusion: Thus, the Basic Structure Doctrine provides is not merely to limit the vast amending powers but to safeguard the rights of the Citizens of the country.