The Indian Constitution, adopted on November 26, 1949, and coming into effect on January 26, 1950, is the world's longest written constitution. It serves as a testament to the vision and aspirations of the founding fathers of India, who aimed to create a democratic, sovereign, and just nation. The Constitution of India is a comprehensive document that lays down the framework defining fundamental political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions, and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Indian Constitution is the concept of the ‘Basic Structure’, a unique and unparalleled doctrine that has evolved over time through various landmark judgments. The Basic Structure Doctrine is a pivotal judicial principle in Indian constitutional law, establishing that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament. This doctrine emerged from the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case. It serves as a safeguard to maintain the integrity, ethos, and essential framework of the Constitution, ensuring that the core values such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law remain inviolable. By delineating the limits of parliamentary power, the Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a protector of constitutional supremacy, preventing any potential misuse of the amendment process to undermine the foundational principles upon which the Indian democracy is built.

The evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine in Indian constitutional law is a complex and multifaceted journey, marked by several landmark judgments that have shaped its development over time. This doctrine, which restricts the amending power of Parliament to ensure the preservation of essential constitutional principles, has evolved through various judicial pronouncements

Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

The seeds of the debate on the amendability of the Constitution were sown in the Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) case. The issue at hand was the validity of the First Amendment, which curtailed the right to property. The Supreme Court upheld the amendment, ruling that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend fundamental rights. The court held that Article 368 provided for the amendment of "any part" of the Constitution, thereby affirming the supremacy of the legislative process in constitutional amendments.

Sajjan Singh Case (1965)

In the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Shankari Prasad. The court once again upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar, in their concurring opinions, expressed concerns about the potential misuse of this power. They hinted at the need to consider inherent limitations on the amending power to preserve the essential features of the Constitution.