Dear Babasaheb: Art. 32, Basic Structure Doctrine, and the Erosion of Constitutional Democracy — CLAT Analysis

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 13 APRIL 2026

CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW + POLITY

On the eve of Ambedkar Jayanti (April 14), The Indian Express published a powerful editorial by political scientist Suhas Palshikar, addressed as a letter to “Dear Babasaheb.” The editorial paints a disturbing picture of the Indian Constitution’s current state — arguing that the document Dr. B.R. Ambedkar shaped has become “unrecognisable” due to systematic political excess and institutional erosion. The piece is a searing critique of how constitutional institutions, particularly Article 32 and the Election Commission, have been weakened from within.

Palshikar argues that Article 32 — which Ambedkar himself called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution — has become “purely fictional.” Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, and Ambedkar envisioned it as the strongest counterbalance to executive excess. However, the editorial contends that courts themselves have “deliberately relegated” this provision, discouraging petitioners from approaching the Supreme Court directly and redirecting them to High Courts under Article 226.

The editorial further argues that political democracy has been “comprehensively weakened.” The Election Commission of India, established under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections, has been made “miserable” by executive interference and political party pressure. The Constitution, according to Palshikar, is being “discarded as mere settlement” — reduced from a transformative document to a vague compromise that can be reinterpreted or ignored at will. He concludes with a warning: “If political democracy is compromised, we are one step away from denying democracy more generally.”

Article 32: The Heart and Soul Under Threat

Article 32 occupies a unique place in the Indian constitutional framework. It is itself a fundamental right — the right to seek constitutional remedies. Unlike Article 226, which grants High Courts the power to issue writs, Article 32 allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly when their fundamental rights are violated. The five writs that can be issued under Article 32 — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto — form the backbone of judicial enforcement of fundamental rights.

Ambedkar’s characterisation of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” was deliberate. Without an effective remedy, rights remain mere paper declarations. The editorial’s argument that Article 32 has become “purely fictional” speaks to a broader concern about the gap between constitutional text and constitutional practice — a concept known as the “living constitution” versus “dead letter” dichotomy that frequently appears in CLAT legal reasoning passages.

The Supreme Court itself has at times discouraged direct petitions under Article 32, asking petitioners to first exhaust remedies under Article 226 before High Courts. While this may be justified on grounds of judicial economy, critics like Palshikar argue that it undermines the very purpose of Article 32 — providing a direct, swift remedy against fundamental rights violations at the highest level.

The Basic Structure Doctrine: India’s Constitutional Firewall

The editorial’s concerns resonate directly with the Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973). This doctrine holds that while Parliament has wide amending power under Article 368, it cannot alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution. Elements identified as part of the basic structure include: supremacy of the Constitution, democratic and republican form of government, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, and — crucially — judicial review.

The doctrine was further strengthened in Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980), which struck down Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act that had tried to remove judicial review. The Court held that the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles is itself a basic feature. In I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Court extended the basic structure test to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, holding that even laws protected by Article 31B can be challenged if enacted after April 24, 1973, and if they violate basic structure principles.

Palshikar’s editorial implicitly invokes this framework when arguing that the Constitution is being “discarded as mere settlement.” If constitutional institutions — the judiciary, the Election Commission, the legislature — are systematically weakened, the basic structure itself is at risk, not through formal amendments but through practical erosion.

Institutional Independence: The Election Commission Under Scrutiny

The editorial’s reference to the Election Commission being made “miserable” touches on a critical aspect of Indian democracy. Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of all elections in the Election Commission. The framers intended the EC to be independent of the executive — yet the appointment of Election Commissioners has remained a contentious issue, with the executive having virtually unfettered power in appointments until the Supreme Court’s 2023 intervention requiring a committee-based selection process.

The broader point of the editorial — that political democracy is the foundation upon which all other democratic rights rest — echoes Ambedkar’s own warnings in his final speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949. Ambedkar cautioned against “the grammar of anarchy” and emphasized that constitutional methods must be used to achieve social and economic objectives. He also warned about “hero-worship” in politics, calling it “a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”