Short & Simple – The doctrine of basic structure of the Indian constitution is a rule that says that certain parts of the constitution are so important that they cannot be changed, even if the government or a group of people wants to change them. These parts of the constitution protect the rights and freedoms of the people, and make sure that the government is fair and accountable. The basic structure of the constitution is like the foundation of a house – it is the most important part, and if it is changed, the whole house might not be safe and stable anymore.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a concept in the Indian constitutional law that helps to protect the core principles of the Constitution of India from any amendment by the Parliament. It was first introduced in the landmark judgment of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973, in which the Supreme Court of India held that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure is based on the theory that the Constitution of India is not a mere legal document, but a social contract between the people of India and the government. Therefore, it cannot be amended in a way that destroys its basic structure, which includes its essential features and fundamental principles.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure has played a crucial role in upholding the sovereignty, democracy, and secularism of the Indian Constitution. It has protected the fundamental rights of the citizens, the independence of the judiciary, and the federal structure of the government.

The concept of basic structure was first introduced in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, in which the Supreme Court held that the Constitution is a living document that evolves with the changing needs of the society. However, it also emphasized that the Constitution has certain essential features that cannot be altered by the Parliament.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure was further developed in the case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court held that the Parliament cannot amend any fundamental right, including the right to property, in a way that takes away the essence of that right. This judgment was later overruled in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, in which the Supreme Court modified the Doctrine of Basic Structure to include not just the fundamental rights, but also other essential features of the Constitution such as the independence of the judiciary, the federal structure of the government, and the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

The doctrine of basic structure has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in several other cases, including:

• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain: In this case, the court upheld the doctrine of basic structure and ruled that an amendment to the Constitution that sought to negate the principles of natural justice was invalid because it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India: In this case, the court upheld the doctrine of basic structure and ruled that an amendment to the Constitution that sought to restrict the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of laws was invalid because it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu: In this case, the court upheld the doctrine of basic structure and ruled that an amendment to the Constitution that sought to limit the right to property was invalid because it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

These cases are examples of how the doctrine of basic structure has been applied by the Supreme Court to protect the fundamental principles of the Constitution from being amended by the Parliament.

One of the main arguments in favor of the Doctrine of Basic Structure is that it helps to protect the Constitution from being amended by a temporary majority in the Parliament. It ensures that the fundamental principles of the Constitution, which are essential for the functioning of a democratic society, cannot be easily altered by a transient political majority.

Another argument in favor of the Doctrine of Basic Structure is that it helps to maintain the balance of power between the different branches of the government. By limiting the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, the Doctrine of Basic Structure helps to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the federal structure of the government.

However, the Doctrine of Basic Structure has also been criticized on the grounds that it gives the judiciary too much power to interpret the Constitution and determine its basic structure. Some argue that this power should be left to the elected representatives of the people, rather than the judges.

Despite these criticisms, the Doctrine of Basic Structure remains an important concept in the Indian constitutional law, and has played a crucial role in protecting the core principles of the Constitution from any amendment that may undermine its basic structure. It has helped to preserve the sovereignty, democracy, and secularism of the Indian Constitution, and has ensured that the fundamental rights of the citizens are protected.

In conclusion, the doctrine of basic structure is an important principle of Indian constitutional law that holds that certain features of the Constitution of India are fundamental and cannot be amended by the Parliament. This doctrine helps to protect the fundamental principles of the Constitution, such as the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the protection of individual rights, and it serves to preserve the constitutional democracy of India.