Last Updated: April 2026
The Basic Structure Doctrine is one of the most important constitutional law concepts for CLAT 2027 legal reasoning. Emerging from the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment, this doctrine defines the relationship between Parliament’s constitutional amendment power and the judiciary’s power of review. Every CLAT aspirant must understand this doctrine thoroughly.
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
In a 7:6 majority in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that while Parliament has wide power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot amend or destroy the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution. This created an implied limitation on Parliament’s amending power.
Historical Background — How Did It Evolve?
| Case | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad v. Union of India | 1951 | Article 368 can amend any provision including Fundamental Rights |
| Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan | 1965 | Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad — Parliament can amend FRs |
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1967 | Reversed — Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Rights |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | Parliament can amend FRs but CANNOT destroy Basic Structure |
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Applied Basic Structure to strike down 39th Amendment |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1980 | Judicial review and balance between FRs and DPSPs = basic structure |
Key Features of Basic Structure (Illustrative List)
The Supreme Court has not provided an exhaustive list but has identified the following as part of the basic structure:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Republican and democratic form of government
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Judicial review
- Free and fair elections
- Unity and integrity of the nation
- Rule of law
- Independence of the judiciary
- Fundamental rights (their “essence,” not individual rights per se)
- Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
- Parliamentary system of government
Article 368 — Parliament’s Amendment Power
Article 368 provides the procedure for amending the Constitution:
- Simple majority: Certain provisions (e.g., creating new states under Article 3)
- Special majority: Most constitutional amendments (2/3rd majority of members present and voting + majority of total membership)
- Special majority + ratification by half the States: Federal provisions (Articles 54, 55, 73, 162, Part V Chapter IV, etc.)
The 42nd Amendment — “Mini Constitution”
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) during the Emergency tried to override Kesavananda Bharati by declaring that Parliament’s amending power is unlimited and no amendment can be questioned in any court. The Supreme Court struck down this provision in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), holding that the power to amend is limited by the basic structure doctrine and courts can review amendments.
Recent Applications of Basic Structure
- NJAC Case (2015): The 99th Constitutional Amendment establishing the National Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down as violating the independence of judiciary (part of basic structure).
- Electoral Bonds Case: Arguments that unlimited political funding violates free and fair elections (part of basic structure) were raised before the Supreme Court.
- Article 370 Abrogation: The basic structure argument was raised but the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation.
CLAT Angle — How Questions Are Set
CLAT legal reasoning passages on the Basic Structure Doctrine typically present:
- A passage about Parliament passing an amendment removing a constitutional provision
- Questions asking whether the amendment is valid
- Application of the principle that Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure
Practice MCQs — Basic Structure for CLAT 2027
Q1. Principle: Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its basic structure. Facts: Parliament passes the 130th Constitutional Amendment removing Articles 32 and 226 (right to constitutional remedies and High Court writ jurisdiction) entirely from the Constitution.
(A) The amendment is valid since Parliament has constituent power under Article 368.
(B) The amendment is invalid since the right to constitutional remedies and judicial review are part of the basic structure.
(C) The amendment is valid if passed with the required special majority.
(D) The amendment is valid since Articles 32 and 226 are not Fundamental Rights.
Answer: (B)
Q2. Principle: The doctrine of basic structure implies that certain features of the Constitution are beyond the amending power of Parliament. Facts: Parliament amends Article 324 to give the executive full control over the Election Commission, removing its functional independence.
(A) The amendment is valid since Parliament can amend electoral laws.
(B) The amendment is invalid as it destroys the free and fair elections feature which is part of the basic structure.
(C) The amendment is valid since the Election Commission is a statutory body.
(D) The amendment is invalid only if it reduces the term of the Chief Election Commissioner.
Answer: (B)
Q3. Principle: Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. Facts: Parliament amends Article 368 to provide that no amendment to the Constitution shall be questioned in any court of law.
(A) This clause is valid since Parliament has the power to determine the scope of its own amendments.
(B) This clause is invalid as it ousts judicial review, which is a part of the basic structure.
(C) This clause is valid as it does not affect Fundamental Rights.
(D) This clause is valid since it was struck down only under Emergency provisions.
Answer: (B) — this was exactly the issue in Minerva Mills
Q4. In which case did the Supreme Court first apply the basic structure doctrine to invalidate a constitutional amendment?
(A) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
(B) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
(C) Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
(D) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Answer: (C) — The doctrine was articulated in Kesavananda (1973) but first APPLIED to invalidate an amendment in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Q5. Principle: The secular character of the Constitution is part of its basic structure. Facts: Parliament amends the Preamble to delete the word “Secular” from it. A citizen challenges this in court.
(A) The challenge will fail since Parliament has absolute power to amend the Preamble.
(B) The challenge will succeed since the Preamble cannot be amended at all.
(C) The challenge may succeed since secularism is widely recognized as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
(D) The challenge will succeed only if the petitioner proves secularism is a Fundamental Right.
Answer: (C)
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine in simple terms?
The Basic Structure Doctrine means that while Parliament can amend almost any part of the Constitution, it cannot destroy or abrogate its “essential features” — such as judicial review, democracy, federalism, and secularism. Even with a two-thirds majority, Parliament cannot cross this line.
Who gave the Basic Structure Doctrine — which judge wrote the majority opinion?
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) was decided by a 13-judge bench with a 7:6 majority. Justice H.R. Khanna’s concurring opinion is considered the clearest articulation of the basic structure concept. Chief Justice Sikri and Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, and Khanna formed the majority for the doctrine.
Is the Basic Structure Doctrine mentioned in the Constitution?
No, the Basic Structure Doctrine is a judge-made doctrine. It is NOT explicitly written anywhere in the Constitution — Article 368 which deals with amendments does not mention it. The Supreme Court derived this doctrine through constitutional interpretation, implying that amending power cannot be unlimited in a constitutional democracy.
Which amendment tried to override the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), passed during the Emergency under Indira Gandhi, inserted Section 55 attempting to make Parliament’s amending power unlimited and unreviewable by courts. The Supreme Court struck down this provision in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), reaffirming the Basic Structure Doctrine.
How is the NJAC Case relevant to the Basic Structure Doctrine?
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment that established the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The Court held that the NJAC violated the independence of the judiciary, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Continue learning on CLAT Gurukul: CLAT 2027 Syllabus | CLAT Coaching in Patna | Free CLAT Mock Test
