Basic structure doctrine

The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial princi- widespread acceptance and legitimacy due to subsequent
ple that the Constitution of India has certain basic features cases and judgments. Primary among these was the im-
that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments position of a state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in
by the parliament.[1] Key among these “basic features”, 1975, and her subsequent attempt to suppress her pros-
are the fundamental rights granted to individuals by the ecution through the 39th Amendment. When the Kesa-
constitution.[1][2][3] The doctrine thus forms the basis of a vananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension
limited power of the Supreme Court to review and strike of the majority bench that elected representatives could
down constitutional amendments enacted by the Parlia- not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived as un-
ment which conflict with or seek to alter this “basic struc- precedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amend-
ture” of the Constitution. The basic structure doctrine ment by the Indian National Congress' majority in central
applies only to constitutional amendments. The basic fea- and state legislatures, proved that in fact such apprehen-
tures of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined sion was well-founded. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
by the Judiciary, and the claim of any particular feature Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, Constitu-
of the Constitution to be a “basic” feature is determined tional Benches of the Supreme Court used the basic struc-
by the Court in each case that comes before it. The ba- ture doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment and
sic structure doctrine does not apply to ordinary Acts of parts of the 42nd Amendment respectively, and paved the
Parliament, which must itself be in conformity with the way for restoration of Indian democracy.[3]
Constitution. The Supreme Court’s position on constitutional amend-
The Supreme Court’s initial position on constitutional ments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament can
amendments was that no part of the Constitution was un- amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its “basic
amendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a structure”.
Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the re-
quirements of article 368, amend any provision of the
Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and ar- 1 Definition
ticle 368. The “basic features” principle was first ex-
pounded in 1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his dis-
sent, in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The “basic features” principle was first expounded in
He wrote, “It is also a matter for consideration whether 1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his dissent, in the case
making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. He wrote, “It is also
can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, a matter for consideration whether making a change in a
in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely
latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?" as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part
of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within
In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions the purview of Article 368 ?"[6]
in Golaknath v. State of Punjab. It held that Fundamental
Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given The basic features of the Constitution have not been ex-
a “transcendental position” and are beyond the reach of plicitly defined by the Judiciary. At least, 20 features have
Parliament. It also declared any amendment that “takes been described as “basic” or “essential” by the Courts in
away or abridges” a Fundamental Right conferred by Part numerous cases, and have been incorporated in the basic
III as unconstitutional. By 1973, the basic structure doc- structure. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Naraian and
trine triumphed in Justice Hans Raj Khanna's judgment also in the Minerva Mills case, it was observed that the
in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a
of Kerala.[4] Previously, the Supreme Court had held that “basic” feature would be determined by the Court in each
the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was case that comes before it. Some of the features of the
unfettered.[1] However, in this landmark ruling, the Court Constitution termed as “basic” are listed below:
adjudicated that while Parliament has “wide” powers, it
did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic 1. Supremacy of the Constitution
elements or fundamental features of the constitution.[5]
2. Rule of law
Although Kesavananda was decided by a narrow mar-
gin of 7-6, the basic structure doctrine has since gained 3. The principle of Separation of Powers

1
2 2 BACKGROUND

4. The objectives specified in the Preamble to the Con- power, with the result that article 13 (2) does not affect
stitution amendments made under article 368. In Sajjan Singh v.
State of Rajasthan (case citation: 1965 AIR 845, 1965
5. Judicial Review SCR (1) 933), by a majority of 3-2, the Supreme Court
6. Articles 32 and 226 held, “When article 368 confers on Parliament the right
to amend the Constitution, the power in question can be
7. Federalism exercised over all the provisions of the Constitution. It
would be unreasonable to hold that the word “Law” in ar-
8. Secularism ticle 13 (2) takes in Constitution Amendment Acts passed
9. The Sovereign, Democratic, Republican structure under article 368.”[7] In both cases, the power to amend
the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368.
10. Freedom and dignity of the individual

11. Unity and integrity of the Nation 2.1 Golaknath case

12. The principle of equality, not every feature of equal-
ity, but the quintessence of equal justice; Main article: I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of
Punjab and Anr.
13. The “essence” of other Fundamental Rights in Part
III In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions
14. The concept of social and economic justice — to in Golaknath v. State of Punjab.[7] A bench of eleven
build a Welfare State: Part IV in toto judges (the largest ever at the time) of the Supreme Court
deliberated as to whether any part of the Fundamental
15. The balance between Fundamental Rights and Di- Rights provisions of the constitution could be revoked or
rective Principles limited by amendment of the constitution. The Supreme
Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27
16. The Parliamentary system of government February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the
17. The principle of free and fair elections Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amend-
ment under article 368 is “law” within the meaning of
18. Limitations upon the amending power conferred by article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amend-
Article 368 ment “takes away or abridges” a Fundamental Right con-
ferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, “The
19. Independence of the Judiciary State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges
20. Effective access to justice the right conferred by this Part and any law made in con-
travention of this clause shall, to the extent of contra-
21. Powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 32, vention, be void.” The Court also ruled that Fundamental
136, 141, 142 Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a
“transcendental position” under the Constitution and are
22. Legislation seeking to nullify the awards made in ex- kept beyond the reach of Parliament. The Court also held
ercise of the judicial power of the State by Arbitra- that the scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the
tion Tribunals constituted under an Act[7] freedoms it granted incapacitated Parliament from modi-
fying, restricting or impairing Fundamental Freedoms in
Part III. Parliament passed the 24th Amendment in 1971
2 Background to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in the Golaknath
case. It amended the Constitution to provide expressly
The Supreme Court’s initial position on constitutional that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the
amendments was that no part of the Constitution was un- Constitution including the provisions relating to Funda-
amendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a mental Rights. This was done by amending articles 13
Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the re- and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368,
quirements of article 368, amend any provision of the from article 13’s prohibition of any law abridging or tak-
Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and ar- ing away any of the Fundamental Rights.[7] Chief Justice
ticle 368. In Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of Koka Subba Rao writing for the majority held that:
India (AIR. 1951 SC 458), the Supreme Court unani-
mously held, “The terms of article 368 are perfectly gen- • A law to amend the constitution is a law for the pur-
eral and empower Parliament to amend the Constitution poses of Article 13.
without any exception whatever. In the context of article
13, “law” must be taken to mean rules or regulations made • Article 13 prevents the passing of laws which “take
in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amend- away or abridge” the Fundamental Rights provi-
ments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent sions.
3.1 Defining the basic structure 3

• Article 368 does not contain a power to amend the 3. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act,
constitution but only a procedure. 1971 is valid.

• The power to amend comes from the normal legisla- 4. Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Constitution (Twenty-
tive power of Parliament. fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 is valid.
• Therefore, amendments which “take away or 5. The first part of section 3 of the Constitution
abridge” the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 is valid. The
be passed. second part namely “and no law containing a decla-
ration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall
be called in question in any court on the ground that
3 Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) it does not give effect to such policy” is invalid.

6. The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act,

Main article: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1971 is valid.[7][9]

Six years later in 1973, the largest ever Constitutional The ruling thus established the principle that the basic
Bench of 13 Judges, heard arguments in Kesavananda structure cannot be amended on the grounds that a power
Bharati v. State of Kerala (case citation: AIR 1973 SC to amend is not a power to destroy.
1461). The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, and considered the validity
of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments. The Court 3.1 Defining the basic structure
held, by a margin of 7-6, that although no part of the con-
stitution, including fundamental rights, was beyond the The majority had differing opinions on what the “basic
amending power of Parliament (thus overruling the 1967 structure” of the Constitution comprised.
case), the “basic structure of the Constitution could not
Chief Justice Sarv Mittra Sikri, writing for the majority,
be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment”.[8] The
indicated that the basic structure consists of the following:
decision of the Judges is complex, consisting of multiple
opinions taking up one complete volume in the law re-
porter “Supreme Court Cases”. The findings included the • The supremacy of the constitution.
following:
• A republican and democratic form of government.

• All of the Judges held that the 24th, 25th and 29th • The secular character of the Constitution.
Amendments Acts are valid.
• Maintenance of the separation of powers.
• Ten judges held that Golak Nath's case was wrongly
decided and that an amendment to the Constitution • The federal character of the Constitution.
was not a “law” for the purposes of Article 13.
Justices Shelat and Grover in their opinion added three
• Seven judges held that the power of amendment is features to the Chief Justice’s list:
plenary and can be used to amend all the articles of
the constitution (including the Fundamental Rights).
• The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the
• Seven judges held (six judges dissenting on this Directive Principles of State Policy.
point) that “the power to amend does not include the
power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution • Maintenance of the unity and integrity of India.
so as to change its identity”. • The sovereignty of the country.
• Seven judges held (two judges dissenting, one leav-
ing this point open) that “there are no inherent or Justices Hegde and Mukherjea, in their opinion, provided
implied limitations on the power of amendment un- a separate and shorter list:
der Article 368”.
• The sovereignty of India.
Nine judges (including two dissentients) signed a state-
ment of summary for the judgment that reads: • The democratic character of the polity.

• The unity of the country.

1. Golak Nath’s case is over-ruled.
• Essential features of individual freedoms.
2. Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the
basic structure or framework of the Constitution. • The mandate to build a welfare state.
4 5 DEVELOPMENT

Justice Jaganmohan Reddy preferred to look at the 5 Development

preamble, stating that the basic features of the constitu-
tion were laid out by that part of the document, and thus
could be represented by:

• A sovereign democratic republic.

[11]
• The provision of social, economic and political jus- Constitutional lawyer A. G. Noorani notes that the
tice. doctrine has “now spread far and wide beyond its fron-
tiers.”, but that the eventual attribution to Dietrich Con-
rad is absent, who propounded the arguments in a lecture
• Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and wor- to the law faculty in the Banaras Hindu University. The
ship. argument, Noorani narrates made way to M K Nambyar
who read the excerpt out in Golaknath.
• Equality of status and opportunity.[10] Implied Limitations of the Amending Power

“Perhaps the position of the Supreme Court is influenced

by the fact that it has not so far been confronted with any
4 The Emergency (1975) extreme type of constitutional amendments. It is the duty
of the jurist, though, to anticipate extreme cases of con-
flict, and sometimes only extreme tests reveal the true
The Court reaffirmed and applied the basic structure doc- nature of a legal concept. So, if for the purpose of le-
trine in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, popularly gal discussion, I may propose some fictive amendment
known as Election case. The constitutionality of Article laws to you, could it still be considered a valid exercise
329A, which had been inserted by the 39th Amendment of the amendment power conferred by Article 368 if a
in 1975 was challenged in this case.[7] Shortly after the two-thirds majority changed Article 1 by dividing India
imposition of the Emergency, a bench of thirteen judges into two States of Tamilnad and Hindustan proper?
was hastily assembled to hear the case. Presided over
by Chief Justice Ajit Nath Ray, the court had to deter- “Could a constitutional amendment abolish Article 21, to
mine the degree to which amendments were restricted by the effect that forthwith a person could be deprived of
the basic structure theory. Ray, who was among the dis- his life or personal liberty without authorisation by law?
senters in the Kesavananda Bharati case, had been pro- Could the ruling party, if it sees its majority shrinking,
moted to Chief Justice of India on 26 April 1973, super- amend Article 368 to the effect that the amending power
seding three senior Judges, Shelat, Grover and Hegde (all rests with the President acting on the advice of the Prime
in the majority in the same case), which was unprece- Minister? Could the amending power be used to abol-
dented in Indian legal history. On November 10 and 11, ish the Constitution and reintroduce, let us say, the rule
the team of civil libertarian barristers, led by Nanabhoy of a moghul emperor or of the Crown of England? I do
Palkhivala, argued against the Union government’s appli- not want, by posing such questions, to provoke easy an-
cation for reconsideration of the Kesavananda decision. swers. But I should like to acquaint you with the discus-
Some of the judges accepted his argument on the very sion which took place on such questions among constitu-
first day, the others on the next; by the end of the sec- tional lawyers in Germany in the Weimar period - discus-
ond day, the Chief Justice was reduced to a minority of sion, seeming academic at first, but suddenly illustrated
one. On the morning of 12 November, Chief Justice Ray by history in a drastic and terrible manner.”
tersely pronounced that the bench was dissolved, and the http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1809/18090950.
judges rose. htm
The 39th Amendment attempted, among other provi- The note is that in Kesavananda Bharati the dissenting
sions, to legitimize the election of Indira Gandhi in 1971. judge, Justic Khanna approved as “substantially correct”
Article 329A put the elections of the Prime Minister and the following observations by Prof. Conrad:
Lok Sabha Speaker outside the purview of the judiciary
and provided for determination of disputes concerning Any amending body organised within the statutory
their elections by an authority to be set up by a Parlia- scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot
mentary law. The Supreme Court struck down clauses by its very structure change the fundamental pillars sup-
(4) and (5) of the article 329A, which made the exist- porting its constitutional authority.
ing election law inapplicable to the Prime Minister’s and Limitation of Amendment Procedures and the Con-
Speaker’s election, and declared the pending proceedings stituent Power; Indian Year Book of International Affairs,
in respect of such elections null and void.[7] 1966-1967, Madras, pp. 375-430
 5

6 Evolution of the doctrine ing an egalitarian era through the discipline

of fundamental rights, that is, without emas-
The basic structure doctrine was further clarified in culation of the rights to liberty and equality
Minerva Mills v. Union of India. The 42nd Amendment which alone can help preserve the dignity of
had been enacted by the government of Indira Gandhi in the individual.[14]
response to the Kesavananda Bharati judgment in an ef-
fort to reduce the power of the judicial review of constitu- This latter view of Article 31C was questioned, but not
tional amendments by the Supreme Court. In the Minerva overturned, in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co v Bharat
Mills case, Nanabhoy Palkhivala successfully moved the Cooking Coal Ltd. (case citation: AIR 1983 SC 239).
Supreme Court to declare sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd The concept of basic structure has since been developed
Amendment as unconstitutional.[12] The constitutionality by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases, such as Wa-
of sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment were chal- man Rao v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 271), Bhim
lenged in this case, when Charan Singh was caretaker Singhji v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 234), S.P. Gupta
Prime Minister. Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had v. President of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) (known as
amended Article 31C of the Constitution to accord prece- Transfer of Judges case), S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union
dence to the Directive Principles of State Policy articu- of India (AIR 1987 SC 386), P. Sambamurthy v. State
lated in Part IV of the Constitution over the Fundamen- of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1987 SC 663), Kihota Hollo-
tal Rights of individuals articulated in Part III. Section hon v. Zachilhu and others (1992 1 SCC 309), L. Chan-
55 prevented any constitutional amendment from being dra Kumar v. Union of India and others (AIR 1997 SC
“called in question in any Court on any ground”. It also 1125), P. V. Narsimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (AIR
declared that there would be no limitation whatever on 1998 SC 2120), I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu
the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of and others (2007 2 SCC 1), and Raja Ram Pal v. The
definition, variation or repeal the provisions of the Con- Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and others (JT 2007 (2) SC
stitution. On 31 July 1980, when Indira Gandhi was back 1) (known as Cash for Query case).[7]
in power, the Supreme Court declared sections 4 & 55
The Supreme Court’s position on constitutional amend-
of the 42nd amendment as unconstitutional. It further
ments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament can
endorsed and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the
amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its “basic
Constitution.[12][13] As had been previously held through
structure”.[13][16]
the basic structure doctrine in the Kesavananda case,
the Court ruled that Parliament could not by amending
the constitution convert limited power into an unlimited
power (as it had purported to do by the 42nd amendment). 7 Influence
In the judgement on section 55, Chief Justice Yeshwant
Vishnu Chandrachud wrote, “Since the Constitution had The influence extends to Commonwealth Countries shar-
conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, ing the judicial system with India. The basic struc-
the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited ture doctrine was adopted by the Supreme Court of
power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Bangladesh in 1989, by expressly relying on the reason-
Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic fea- ing in the Kesavananda case, in its ruling on Anwar Hos-
tures of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on sain Chowdhary v. Bangladesh (41 DLR 1989 App. Div.
that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parlia- 165, 1989 BLD (Spl.) 1).[17]
ment can not, under Article 368, expand its amending
The High Court of Singapore denied the application of
power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or ab-
the basic features doctrine in Singapore in Teo Soh Lung
rogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essen-
v. Minister for Home Affairs. Justice Frederick Arthur
tial features. The donee of a limited power cannot be the
Chua held that the doctrine was not applicable to the Sin-
exercise of that power convert the limited power into an
gapore Constitution: “Considering the differences in the
unlimited one.”[14] The ruling was widely welcomed in
making of the Indian and our Constitution, it cannot be
India, and Gandhi did not challenge the verdict.[15] In the
said that our Parliament’s power to amend our Constitu-
judgement on Section 4, Chandrachud wrote:
tion is limited in the same way as the Indian Parliament’s
Three Articles of our Constitution, and power to amend the Indian Constitution.”[18]
only three, stand between the heaven of free- In Malaysia, the basic features doctrine was also found
dom into which Tagore wanted his country to to be inapplicable by the Federal Court in Phang Chin
awake and the abyss of unrestrained power. Hock v. Public Prosecutor.[19] The Court remarked that
They are Articles 14, 19 and 21. Article 31C the Indian Constitution was not drafted by “mere mor-
has removed two sides of that golden trian- tals”, while the same could not be said for the Malaysian
gle which affords to the people of this coun- Constitution.[20] The Indian Constitution was drafted by
try an assurance that the promise held forth a constituent assembly representative of the Indian peo-
by the preamble will be performed by usher- ple in territorial, racial and community terms,[21] while
6 9 REFERENCES

both the Malaysian and Singapore Constitutions were en- [11] NOORANI, A. G. (Apr 28 – May 11, 2001). “Behind
acted by ordinary legislatures. Reliance on the drawing the 'basic structure' doctrine : On India’s debt to a Ger-
of distinctions between the Indian Constitution on the one man jurist, Professor Dietrich Conrad”. Frontline. the
hand and the Malaysian and Singapore Constitutions on Hindu group. Retrieved 22 March 2014. THERE is,
the other on the basis of the history of their framing has sadly, little acknowledgment in India of that debt we owe
[22] to a distinguished German jurist and a scholar steeped in
been criticized as weak and inadequate.
other disciplines beyond the confines of law - Professor
Dietrich Conrad, formerly Head of the Law Department,
South Asia Institute of the University of Heidelberg, Ger-
8 See also many....It was no mere coincidence that a German ju-
rist had thought of implied limitations on the amending
power. Article 79(3) of the Basic Law of the Federal Re-
• Judicial Activism In India public of Germany, adopted on May 8, 1949, six months
before the drafting of India’s Constitution ended, bars ex-
• Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs in plicitly amendments to provisions concerning the federal
Singapore, the concerned court considered and re- structure and to “the basic principles laid down in Articles
jected the applicability of the doctrine. 1 and 20 (on human rights and the “democratic and social”
set-up). The Germans learnt from the bitter experience of
• Phang Chin Hock v. Public Prosecutor in Malaysia. the Nazi era. The framers of the Constitution of India re-
fused to look beyond the Commonwealth countries and
• Anwar Hossain Chowdhary v. Bangladesh the United States....Prof. Conrad aptly remarked that “in
this free trade of constitutional ideas the Indian Supreme
Court has come to play the role of an exporter. This holds
true with respect to at least two major innovations intro-
9 References duced by the court"; namely, public interest litigation and
“the basic structure doctrine”.
[1] “The basic features”. The Hindu. 2004-09-26. Retrieved [12] Raghav Sharma (2008-04-16). “Minerva Mills Ltd. &
2012-07-09. Ors. v. Union of India & Ors: A Jurisprudential Per-
spective”. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved
[2] “Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on
2012-07-17.
24 April, 1973”. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
[13] “Indian Constitution: Sixty years of our faith”. The Indian
[3] “Revisiting a verdict” 29 (01). Frontline. Jan 14–27, Express. 2010-02-02. Retrieved 2013-12-01.
2012. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
[14] “Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.”.
[4] “Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on Open Archive. Retrieved 2012-07-17.
24 April, 1973”. Indian Kanoon. Para. 316. Retrieved
[15] “When in doubt, amend”. Indian Express. 2009-08-21.
2012-06-24.
Retrieved 2013-11-23.
[5] “Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on [16] “India - The Constitution”. Countrystudies.us. Retrieved
24 April, 1973”. Indian Kanoon. Para. 787. Retrieved 2013-12-01.
2012-07-09.
[17] http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1809/18090950.htm
[6] http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume3/issue_2/
article_by_rushminsunny.html [18] Teo Soh Lung (H.C.), p. 479, para. 47.

[19] [1980] 1 M.L.J. [Malayan Law Journal] 70.

[7] “Constitution Amendment: Nature and Scope of the
Amending Process” (PDF). Lok Sabha Secretariat. pp. [20] Phang Chin Hock, p. 73.
14–20. Retrieved 1 December 2013. This article incorpo-
rates text from this source, which is in the public domain. [21] Jaclyn Ling-Chien Neo; Yvonne C.L. Lee (2009), “Pro-
tecting Rights”, in Li-ann Thio; Kevin Y[ew] L[ee] Tan,
[8] Austin, Granville (1999). Working a Democratic Constitu- eds., Evolution of a Revolution: Forty years of the Singa-
tion - A History of the Indian Experience. New Delhi: Ox- pore Constitution, London; New York, N.Y.: Routledge-
ford University Press. pp. 258–277. ISBN 019565610-5. Cavendish, p. 169, ISBN 978-0-415-43862-9.

[22] Ravneet Kaur (1994), “The Basic Features Doctrine and

[9] Satya Prateek (2008). “Today’s Promise, Tomorrow’s
the Elected President Act”, Singapore Law Review 15:
Constitution: 'Basic Structure', Constitutional Transfor-
244–266 at 253–254; see also A[ndrew] J. Harding
mations And The Future Of Political Progress In India”
(1979), “Death of a Doctrine? Phang Chin Hock v. Public
(PDF). NUJS Law Review (West Bengal National Univer-
Prosecutor", Malaya Law Review 21: 365–374 at 371.
sity of Juridical Sciences) 1 (3). Retrieved 2012-07-17.

[10] Jasdeep Randhawa. “Understanding Judicialization Of • http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/

Mega-Politics : The Basic Structure Doctrine And Mini- const/the_basic_structure_of_the_indian_
mum Core”. Jus Politicum. Retrieved 2012-07-17. constitution.pdf
 7

• H M Seervai, 'Constitutional Law of India'

• V.N. Shukla 'Constitution of India' 10th edition

• Anuranjan Sethi (October 25, 2005), 'Basic Struc-
ture Doctrine: Some Reflections”. SSRN 835165
• Conrad, Dietrich, Law and Justice, United Lawyers
Association, New Delhi (Vol. 3, Nos. 1-4; pages
99–114)

• Conrad, Dietrich,Limitation of Amendment Proce-

dures and the Constituent Power; Indian Year Book
of International Affairs, 1966-1967, Madras, pp.
375–430

Indian Constitution Basic Structure

8 10 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

10 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

10.1 Text
• Basic structure doctrine Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine?oldid=701971436 Contributors: Iota, Raviki-
ran r, Pmanderson, Rich Farmbrough, VishalB, John Vandenberg, Hydriotaphia, Mindmatrix, Bgwhite, RussBot, WAvegetarian, Horn-
please, JPMcGrath, Closedmouth, SmackBot, Hmains, Bhavnit batra, Legaleagle86, Rory096, Gadiyar, Outriggr (2006-2009), Sanveer,
Camhusmj38, Flyer22 Reborn, Mild Bill Hiccup, Sun Creator, Bloodymurder1992, Awe sreg bbb, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Skcpublic, Mave12,
Diannaa, Alokagrawal8, ClueBot NG, AgniKalpa, Suresh 5, Wbm1058, Metricopolus, BattyBot, BigJolly9, Faizan, Pokedora, Nishantking,
Ufk iitk, Kautilya3, Sudhanshugupta006 and Anonymous: 33

10.2 Images
• File:Emblem_of_India.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Emblem_of_India.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in Original artist: Defined by the Indian government as national emblem
• File:Scale_of_justice_2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work Original artist: DTR

10.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0