Constitution

The "Basic Structure" doctrine is a judicial innovation by the Supreme Court of India that limits the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. This doctrine states that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter the fundamental features or the essential framework of the Constitution. The doctrine emerged to resolve the conflict between the Parliament's amending power and the protection of fundamental rights. Early Supreme Court judgments fluctuated on whether Fundamental Rights could be amended. In the `Shankari Prasad case` (1951), the Court held that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights. This position was reversed in the `Golak Nath case` (1967), which declared Fundamental Rights "transcendental and immutable" and beyond Parliament's amending power. In response, Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act (1971) to assert its power to amend Fundamental Rights. However, the landmark `Kesavananda Bharati case` (1973) upheld the 24th Amendment's validity but simultaneously introduced the "Basic Structure" doctrine. It ruled that Article 368 does not grant Parliament the power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This means that a Fundamental Right forming part of the 'basic structure' cannot be abridged or taken away. The doctrine was reaffirmed in subsequent cases like `Indira Nehru Gandhi case` (1975) and `Minerva Mills case` (1980), which further clarified that the limited amending power of Parliament is itself a basic feature that cannot be enlarged into an absolute power. The Supreme Court has not explicitly defined what constitutes the 'basic structure' but has identified several elements through various judgments over the years. These elements include the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, the federal and democratic character of the polity, secularism, judicial review, freedom and dignity of the individual, parliamentary system, rule of law, and the limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The doctrine applies to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973.

The Constituent Assembly of India, despite its historic role in drafting the Constitution, faced significant criticism from contemporary observers and scholars. Critics raised concerns across multiple dimensions: the Assembly's representativeness, its sovereignty, the time it took to complete the Constitution, its ideological and professional composition, and questions about communal representation. The primary critiques centered on three structural issues. First, critics argued that because members were indirectly elected through provincial legislative assemblies with limited franchise (rather than by direct universal adult suffrage), the Assembly lacked true representative legitimacy. Second, they contended that the Assembly's sovereignty was compromised since it was created under a British proposal (the Cabinet Mission Plan) and required British permission to hold sessions. Third, observers questioned whether the Assembly's extended timeline—spanning nearly three years—was excessive compared to other constitution-making bodies. Beyond structural concerns, critics examined the Assembly's internal composition and dynamics. They contended that Congress party dominance, the over-representation of lawyers and politicians, and alleged Hindu predominance skewed the Constitution toward particular interests rather than representing India's full diversity. These criticisms, while not invalidating the Assembly's achievements, highlighted tensions between democratic ideals and the practical constraints of mid-twentieth-century India.

The Preamble to the Indian Constitution is the introductory statement that sets out the guiding values, principles, and objectives of the Constitution. According to the text, the enabling provisions of the Constitution are supported by and have their foundation in the Preamble. It provides the overarching framework within which the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy derive their broader purpose. The Preamble embodies the values incorporated in the Objectives Resolution moved by Nehru in 1946. These fundamental commitments as expressed in the Objectives Resolution include: equality, liberty, democracy, sovereignty, and a cosmopolitan identity. The Constitution is thus described not merely as "a maze of rules and procedures, but a moral commitment to establish a government that will fulfil the many promises that the nationalist movement held before the people." The Preamble is relevant to understanding the aspirational function of the Constitution — what the text identifies as the "fourth function": enabling the government to fulfil the aspirations of a society and create conditions for a just society. Twentieth century constitutions, of which the Indian Constitution is described as "the finest example," go beyond limiting government power to also providing an enabling framework for positive action. The text notes that the framers thought "each individual in society should have all that is necessary for them to lead a life of minimal dignity and social self-respect — minimum material well being, education etc." This vision is embedded in and supported by the Preamble. The Preamble contains the grand and noble vision of the Constituent Assembly, and reflects the dreams and aspirations of the founding fathers of the Constitution. It embodies the basic philosophy and fundamental values—political, moral and religious—on which the Constitution is based.