Basic structure doctrine (original) (raw)
The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| dbo:abstract | The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution. In Kesavananda, Justice Hans Raj Khanna propounded that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament of India. Key among these "basic features", as expounded by Justice Khanna, are the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals by the constitution. The doctrine thus forms the basis of the power of the Supreme Court of India to review and strike down constitutional amendments and acts enacted by the Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this "basic structure" of the Constitution. The basic features of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic" feature is determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional amendments had been that any part of the Constitution was amendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in Golaknath v. State of Punjab. It held that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a "transcendental position" and are beyond the reach of Parliament. It also declared any amendment that "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III as unconstitutional. In 1973, the basic structure doctrine was formally introduced with rigorous legal reasoning in Justice Hans Raj Khanna's decisive judgment in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Previously, the Supreme Court had held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was unfettered. However, in this landmark ruling, the Court adjudicated that while Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution. Although Kesavananda was decided by a narrow margin of 7–6, the basic structure doctrine, as propounded in Justice Khanna's judgement, has since gained widespread legal and scholarly acceptance due to a number of subsequent cases and judgments relying heavily upon it to strike down Parliamentary amendments that were held to be violative of the basic structure and therefore unconstitutional. Primary among these was the imposition of a state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975, and her subsequent attempt to suppress her prosecution through the 39th Amendment. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived as unprecedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amendment by the Indian National Congress' majority in central and state legislatures, proved that in fact such apprehension was well-grounded. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment and parts of the 42nd Amendment respectively, and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy. The Supreme Court's position on constitutional amendments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its "basic structure". The basic structure doctrine was rejected by the High Court of Singapore. It was initially also rejected by the Federal Court of Malaysia, but was later accepted by it. Conversely, the doctrine was initially approved in Belize by the Supreme Court. (en) La doctrine de la structure fondamentale (en anglais : basic structure doctrine) est une théorie juridique de common law selon laquelle la constitution d'un État souverain présente certaines caractéristiques qui ne peuvent être effacées par son législateur. Cette théorie est reconnue en Inde, au Bangladesh, en Malaisie, au Pakistan et en Ouganda. Elle a été développée par la Cour suprême de l'Inde dans une série d'affaires de droit constitutionnel dans les années 1960 et 1970 qui ont culminé dans l'affaire (en), où la théorie a été formellement adoptée. Le Bangladesh est peut-être le seul système juridique au monde qui reconnaît cette doctrine de manière exprimée, écrite et rigide par l'article 7B de sa Constitution. La Constitution habilite le Parlement et les législatures ou assemblées des États à légiférer dans leurs juridictions respectives. Toutefois, un projet de loi visant à modifier la Constitution peut être présenté au Parlement lui-même, mais cela ne constitue pas un pouvoir absolu. Si la Cour suprême (ou la cour constitutionnelle) estime que la constitution d’une loi adoptée par le Parlement ne correspond pas aux caractéristiques fondamentales, elle a le pouvoir de la déclarer invalide. Dans l'affaire Kesavananda, le juge Hans Raj Khanna a affirmé que la Constitution de l'Inde possède certaines caractéristiques fondamentales qui ne peuvent être modifiées ou détruites par des amendements du Parlement indien. Parmi ces "caractéristiques fondamentales", comme l'a expliqué le juge Khanna, figurent les droits fondamentaux garantis aux individus par la Constitution. Cette doctrine constitue donc la base du pouvoir de la Cour suprême de l'Inde de contrôler et d'annuler les amendements constitutionnels et les lois promulguées par le Parlement qui entrent en conflit avec cette "structure de base" de la Constitution ou cherchent à la modifier. Les caractéristiques fondamentales de la Constitution n'ont pas été explicitement définies par le pouvoir judiciaire, et la revendication d'une caractéristique particulière de la Constitution comme étant une caractéristique "fondamentale" est déterminée par la Cour dans chaque cas qui lui est soumis. (fr) |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink | https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/const/the_basic_structure_of_the_indian_constitution.pdf https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/legitimacy-of-the-basic-structure/article26168775.ece http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1809/18090950.htm |
| dbo:wikiPageID | 4965534 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength | 45190 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID | 1107172136 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink | dbc:Constitution_of_India dbr:Sarv_Mittra_Sikri dbr:Parliamentary_system dbr:Belize dbr:Democracy dbr:Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council dbr:Judicial_activism_in_India dbr:Judicial_review dbr:Uganda dbr:Liberal_democratic_basic_order dbr:1980_Indian_general_election dbr:Constitution_of_Bangladesh dbr:Constitution_of_India dbr:Constitution_of_Pakistan dbr:Chief_Justice_of_Belize dbr:Entrenched_clause dbr:Nanabhoy_Palkhivala dbr:Constitution_of_Malaysia dbr:Constitutional_law dbr:Constitutionality dbr:Equal_justice_under_law dbr:Malaysia dbr:Chitto_Jetha_Bhayshunyo dbr:Common_law dbr:Fundamental_Rights,_Directive_Principles_and_Fundamental_Duties_of_India dbr:Fundamental_rights_in_India dbr:Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala dbr:Fundamental_Rights_in_India dbr:Sovereignty dbr:Banaras_Hindu_University dbr:Bangladesh dbr:Welfare_state dbr:Minerva_Mills_v._Union_of_India dbr:A._G._Noorani dbr:Abdulai_Conteh dbr:Federal_Court_of_Malaysia dbr:Federalism dbr:Federation dbr:Pakistan dbr:Parliament_of_India dbr:Parliament_of_Pakistan dbr:Caretaker_government dbr:Dignity dbr:Forty-second_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Judicial_independence dbr:Legal_doctrine dbr:Landmark_decision dbr:The_Emergency_(India) dbr:Preamble_to_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Republic dbr:Rule_of_law dbr:Hans_Raj_Khanna dbr:High_Court_of_Singapore dbc:Legal_doctrines_and_principles dbr:Access_to_justice dbc:Judicial_review dbr:Charan_Singh dbr:Chief_Justice_of_India dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Bangladesh dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Belize dbr:Supreme_Court_of_India dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Pakistan dbr:Economic_justice dbr:Directive_Principles dbr:Free_and_fair_election dbr:Freedom dbr:I.C._Golak_Nath_and_Ors._vs._State_of_Punjab_and_Anr. dbr:India dbr:Indian_National_Congress dbr:Indira_Gandhi dbr:Koka_Subba_Rao dbr:National_Assembly_(Belize) dbr:Case_citation dbr:Rabindranath_Tagore dbr:Secular dbr:Separation_of_powers dbr:Secularism dbr:Directive_Principles_in_India dbr:Social_justice dbr:Teo_Soh_Lung_v._Minister_for_Home_Affairs dbr:Thirty-ninth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Judicature_of_Belize dbr:Yeshwant_Vishnu_Chandrachud dbr:Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Forty-second_amendment_of_the_Indian_Constitution dbr:Directive_Principles_of_State_Policy dbr:Indian_Emergency dbr:Ajit_Nath_Ray dbr:Belize_Constitution_(Eighth)_Amendment_Act_2011 dbr:Belize_Constitution_(Sixth_Amendment)_Bill_2008 dbr:Belize_Telecommunications_(Amendment)_Act_2011 dbr:Bowen_v_Attorney_General dbr:British_Caribbean_Bank_Ltd_v_AG_Belize dbr:Dietrich_Conrad dbr:M_K_Nambyar dbr:S:Constitution_of_India/Part_XII |
| dbp:align | center (en) |
| dbp:quote | "Perhaps the position of the Supreme Court is influenced by the fact that it has not so far been confronted with any extreme type of constitutional amendments. It is the duty of the jurist, though, to anticipate extreme cases of conflict, and sometimes only extreme tests reveal the true nature of a legal concept. So, if for the purpose of legal discussion, I may propose some fictive amendment laws to you, could it still be considered a valid exercise of the amendment power conferred by Article 368 if a two-thirds majority changed Article 1 by dividing India into two States of Tamilnad and Hindustan proper? "Could a constitutional amendment abolish Article 21, to the effect that forthwith a person could be deprived of his life or personal liberty without authorisation by law? Could the ruling party, if it sees its majority shrinking, amend Article 368 to the effect that the amending power rests with the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister? Could the amending power be used to abolish the Constitution and reintroduce, let us say, the rule of a moghul emperor or of the Crown of England? I do not want, by posing such questions, to provoke easy answers. But I should like to acquaint you with the discussion which took place on such questions among constitutional lawyers in Germany in the Weimar period - discussion, seeming academic at first, but suddenly illustrated by history in a drastic and terrible manner." (en) Any amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority. (en) |
| dbp:source | http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1809/18090950.htm Limitation of Amendment Procedures and the Constituent Power; Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 1966-1967, Madras, pp. 375-430 (en) |
| dbp:title | Implied Limitations of the Amending Power (en) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate | dbt:Law dbt:Main dbt:Quotation dbt:Quote_box dbt:Reflist dbt:Rp dbt:SSRN dbt:Short_description dbt:Indian_Constitution_TOC |
| dct:subject | dbc:Constitution_of_India dbc:Legal_doctrines_and_principles dbc:Judicial_review |
| gold:hypernym | dbr:Principle |
| rdf:type | dbo:Agent |
| rdfs:comment | The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution. (en) La doctrine de la structure fondamentale (en anglais : basic structure doctrine) est une théorie juridique de common law selon laquelle la constitution d'un État souverain présente certaines caractéristiques qui ne peuvent être effacées par son législateur. Cette théorie est reconnue en Inde, au Bangladesh, en Malaisie, au Pakistan et en Ouganda. Elle a été développée par la Cour suprême de l'Inde dans une série d'affaires de droit constitutionnel dans les années 1960 et 1970 qui ont culminé dans l'affaire (en), où la théorie a été formellement adoptée. Le Bangladesh est peut-être le seul système juridique au monde qui reconnaît cette doctrine de manière exprimée, écrite et rigide par l'article 7B de sa Constitution. (fr) |
| rdfs:label | Basic structure doctrine (en) Doctrine de la structure fondamentale (Common law) (fr) |
| owl:sameAs | freebase:Basic structure doctrine wikidata:Basic structure doctrine dbpedia-fr:Basic structure doctrine http://hi.dbpedia.org/resource/आधारभूत_लक्षण_का_सिद्धान्त https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4Vqia |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom | wikipedia-en:Basic_structure_doctrine?oldid=1107172136&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf | wikipedia-en:Basic_structure_doctrine |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of | dbr:Basic_Structure dbr:Doctrine_of_Basic_Structure dbr:Basic_Structure_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Basic_feature_doctrine_(Constitution_of_India) dbr:Basic_structure dbr:Basic_structure_(constitutionality_test) dbr:Basic_structure_doctorine_(Constitution_of_India) dbr:Basic_structure_doctrine_(Constitution_of_India) dbr:Basic_structure_of_the_Constitution_doctrine dbr:'Basic_Structure' |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of | dbr:Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Saradha_Group_financial_scandal dbr:List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:National_Judicial_Appointments_Commission dbr:One_Hundred_and_Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:2021_Kenyan_constitutional_referendum_attempt dbr:Judicial_activism_in_India dbr:List_of_chief_justices_of_the_Gujarat_High_Court dbr:Religion_in_India dbr:Liberal_democratic_basic_order dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_India dbr:Constitution dbr:Constitution_of_Singapore dbr:Entrenched_clause dbr:Constitutional_amendment dbr:Zail_Singh dbr:Federalism_in_India dbr:Fundamental_rights_in_India dbr:Kesavananda_Bharati dbr:Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala dbr:Teo_Soh_Lung_v_Minister_for_Home_Affairs dbr:1973_in_India dbr:Twenty-fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Twenty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Lawmaking_procedure_in_India dbr:Loh_Kooi_Choon_v_Malaysia dbr:Minerva_Mills_v._Union_of_India dbr:A._N._Ray dbr:Ouster_clause dbr:Basic_Structure dbr:Edneer_Mutt dbr:Forty-second_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Judicial_activism dbr:Judicial_review_in_India dbr:Preamble_to_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Reservation_in_India dbr:Rule_of_law dbr:Hans_Raj_Khanna dbr:Three_Judges_Cases dbr:Khalsa_College,_Amritsar dbr:Supreme_Court_of_India dbr:Article_15_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Doctrine_of_Basic_Structure dbr:Separation_of_powers dbr:Lists_of_landmark_court_decisions dbr:Unconstitutional_constitutional_amendment dbr:Basic_Structure_of_the_Constitution_of_India dbr:Basic_feature_doctrine_(Constitution_of_India) dbr:Basic_structure dbr:Basic_structure_(constitutionality_test) dbr:Basic_structure_doctorine_(Constitution_of_India) dbr:Basic_structure_doctrine_(Constitution_of_India) dbr:Basic_structure_of_the_Constitution_doctrine dbr:'Basic_Structure' |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of | wikipedia-en:Basic_structure_doctrine |