Critics assert that limitless judicial authority rests on the structural ambiguity of the basic structure doctrine. Has the elastic nature of the basic structure doctrine made the judiciary more powerful than the executive?
Introduction
Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973 propounded Basic Structural Doctrine Part III of Indian Constitution deals with Fundamental Rights which are basic rights available to all citizens. S.R. Bommai v/s Union of India, 1994 was a landmark case in history of Indian Federalism.
44 words
Main Body
Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973 propounded Basic Structural Doctrine which is basic tenets of constitution which cannot be changed by Parliament. Eg: Federalism, Judicial Independence, etc.
Making Judiciary More Powerful
has led to judiciary interfering with executive functions. Eg: Court Committee for organs distribution.
However, Judiciary is not limitless
who can disagree. Eg: Judge Sawalah Keipal, Akhil Kukleshan, etc.
Hence, while Basic Structure has led to Constitutionalism, Supreme Court Should be careful to not turn it into a weapon against executive, fine balance will have to be maintained.
Part III of Indian Constitution deals with Fundamental Rights which are basic rights available to all citizens.
Possession Independent of State
Restrictions Needed
Eg: Freedom under Art. 19 cannot be freedom to kill someone.
Emergency (Ar. 358 & 359).
Excessive Restrictions Today
Hence, while restrictions are necessary, it should be used judiciously & only to ensure public order, security etc. SoPs should be developed to avoid misuse.
S.R. Bommai v/s Union of India, 1994 was a landmark case in history of Indian Federalism.
Significance of Case
Impact of Case
Suspended Governments. Eg: Neham Redin Carr, 2016.
Conclusion
Hence, while Basic Structure has led to Constitutionalism, Supreme Court Should be careful to not turn it into a weapon against executive, fine balance will have to be maintained. Hence, while restrictions are necessary, it should be used judiciously & only to ensure public order, security etc. SoPs should be developed to avoid misuse. Courts have restricted discretion of Governor to ensure stability. Eg: Trust Vote only on advice of council of ministers.
73 words
- Cites landmark case establishing basic structure doctrine
- Identifies key basic tenets like Federalism and Judicial Independence
- Provides specific examples of judicial overreach (NJAC, appointments)
- Acknowledges counter-argument about limits on judicial power
- Lists parliamentary and presidential checks
- Provides concrete judicial examples (VISHAKHA guidelines)
- Balanced conclusion acknowledging both benefits and risks
- Mentions specific judges to illustrate point
- Correctly identifies fundamental rights as independent of state
- Uses relevant constitutional articles
- Begins to address need for restrictions
- Cites multiple constitutional articles to support restrictions
- Provides practical examples for each restriction type
- Covers social, administrative, and public interest dimensions
- Identifies contemporary issue of misuse of restrictive laws
- Cites landmark judgment on internet shutdowns
- Provides statistics on UAPA convictions
- Balanced approach suggesting need for SOPs
- Correctly identifies key significance of landmark case
- Uses direct Supreme Court quote on federalism
- Concise and relevant points
- Provides multiple concrete impacts of the judgment
- Links case to modern federal mechanisms (NITI Aayog, GST Council)
- Shows how regional parties benefited from increased autonomy
- Logical flow of consequences
- Provides specific example of court intervention (Neham Redin Carr, 2016)
- Shows how judicial oversight creates checks on gubernatorial power
Aniket Dnyaneshwar Hirde
Basic Structure Doctrine
Judicial Powers and Limitations
Expansion of Judicial Authority through Basic Structure Doctrine
680
Total words
36
Paragraphs
formal
Tone