The Basic Structure Doctrine and Its Continuing Relevance in Indian Constitutional Law

The basic structure doctrine means that Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot use that power to destroy the Constitution's essential features. The rule was laid down by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, decided on 24 April 1973, and it still decides whether a constitutional amendment survives a challenge in court.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for constitutional law papers, and for any citizen who wants to know why courts can review changes to the Constitution itself. The doctrine shapes how judges are appointed, how reservation amendments are tested and how far Parliament can go in shielding laws from review, so it touches everyday public life more than its name suggests.

What does the constitutional text actually say?

Start with Article 368, because examiners expect you to know the text before the case law. In its present form it provides:

• Clause (1): Parliament may, in exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of the Constitution, following the procedure in the Article.
• Clause (2): an amendment Bill must pass each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, and then receive the President's assent.
• Proviso to clause (2): amendments touching certain matters, such as the election of the President, the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, representation of States in Parliament and Article 368 itself, also need ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States.
• Clause (3): nothing in Article 13 applies to an amendment made under Article 368.
• Clauses (4) and (5): inserted by the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, these tried to bar courts from questioning any amendment and declared that there is no limit on Parliament's constituent power. They were struck down in Minerva Mills (see below), though they still appear in printed texts.

Notice what is missing. The words "basic structure" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The doctrine is an implied limit that the Supreme Court read into the amending power.

How did the Supreme Court arrive at the doctrine?

The case law moves in clear stages. Learn them in this order:

1. Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (5 October 1951): a five-judge bench upheld the First Amendment and held that "law" in Article 13(2) means ordinary legislation, not a constitutional amendment. Fundamental rights could therefore be amended.
2. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (27 February 1967): an 11-judge bench reversed that view by a narrow majority. Chief Justice Subba Rao held that an amendment is "law" under Article 13(2) and that Parliament could not take away or abridge fundamental rights. He applied this prospectively, from the date of the judgment.
3. The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1971): Parliament responded by amending Article 368 to bring fundamental rights back within its amending power and to exclude amendments from Article 13.
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (24 April 1973): a 13-judge bench led by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri heard arguments for 68 days. The Court accepted that Parliament could amend every part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but held by a 7:6 majority that it could not alter the basic structure.
5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (7 November 1975): a five-judge bench examined clause (4) of Article 329A, added by the Thirty-ninth Amendment to validate the Prime Minister's disputed election. One opinion described the clause as a declaratory judgment rather than a law and said the validation offended the rule of law. Read the separate opinions carefully, because the judges reasoned differently.
6. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (31 July 1980): a five-judge bench held sections 4 and 55 of the Forty-second Amendment void. The majority held that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature, and that the balance between Part III (fundamental rights) and Part IV (directive principles) is part of the basic structure.

How has the doctrine been applied since 1980?

Three later decisions show the doctrine at work, and each is useful in an answer.

• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (11 January 2007): a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda decision must be tested against the basic structure. The Court did not declare such laws invalid as a class, but held that a law infringing the essence of fundamental rights, such as those reflected in Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, can be struck down.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (16 October 2015): a five-judge bench, by 4:1, struck down the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, which had created the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The majority treated independence of the judiciary and separation of powers as part of the basic structure. Justice J. Chelameswar dissented.
• Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (7 November 2022): a five-judge bench, by 3:2, upheld the 103rd Amendment, which allows reservation for economically weaker sections. The majority found no breach of the basic structure, while Justice Ravindra Bhat in dissent held that excluding SC, ST and OBC communities from the EWS quota violated it. This case is a good reminder that the doctrine is a test, not an automatic veto.

Where does the doctrine stand in 2026?

As of this writing, Kesavananda Bharati remains good law, and we found no Supreme Court decision overruling or narrowing it. Any constitutional amendment can still be challenged on the ground that it damages the basic structure, and the Supreme Court decides each challenge feature by feature. In April 2023, the Supreme Court marked the fiftieth anniversary of the judgment by publishing a dedicated webpage with the arguments, written submissions and the judgment, which is a useful primary source for students. Because new constitution bench rulings can refine the doctrine, check the Supreme Court's website for recent judgments before your exam.

How should you write about it in an exam?

A student in Nagercoil writing a 15-mark answer on "Is Parliament's amending power unlimited?" can follow this structure:

1. Answer first: state in two lines that the power under Article 368 is wide but limited by the basic structure.
2. Text: quote the key parts of Article 368, including the special majority and the ratification proviso.
3. Evolution: trace Sankari Prasad, Golaknath, the Twenty-fourth Amendment and Kesavananda in that order, with years.
4. Consolidation: use Minerva Mills to show that the Court protected its own power of review.
5. Application: add I.R. Coelho (it arose from Tamil Nadu, which makes it a natural local example), the NJAC case and the EWS case.
6. Critique and conclusion: note the main criticism (the features are identified by judges case by case, not listed in the text) and the main defence (it stops a temporary majority from rewriting the Constitution's identity).

Two common mistakes cost marks. First, do not say the Constitution lists basic features; it does not. Second, do not cite clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 as valid law without mentioning Minerva Mills.

Students who want to see constitutional questions arise in real disputes can also join the college legal aid clinic.

Sources

• Constitution of India: Article 368: current text of Article 368 with its drafting and amendment history.
• Supreme Court of India: Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951): official copy of the judgment.
• ThePrint: Kesavananda verdict at 50: report on the bench, the 7:6 majority and the Supreme Court's anniversary webpage.
• Indian Kanoon: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): full text of the judgment.
• Indian Kanoon: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): full text of the nine-judge bench judgment.
• Supreme Court Observer: why the NJAC was struck down: analysis of the 2015 judgment.