Language
Country/Area
No result found
Debate in Kesavananda Bharati: How does the Supreme Court define the 'essential features' of the Constitution?
The Kesavananda Bharati case of the Supreme Court of India is not only a milestone in Indian constitutional law, but also an important case in constitutional jurisprudence around the world. The case formalized the "basic structure" theory, which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution should not be altered by amendments by the Legislature. This theory laid an inviolable foundation for India's constitutional system and provided the legal basis for many subsequent judgments.
“The basic feature of the Constitution is based on the dignity and freedom of citizens, which cannot be destroyed by any legislation.”
The background of the case dates back to the 1960s, when a series of constitutional cases occurred in the High Court of India, culminating in the Kesavananda trial. The core of this case is whether the basic structure of the constitution can be changed through constitutional amendment. In a 1973 ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that although Congress has the power to amend the Constitution, its power does not include changing the fundamental features of the Constitution.
The Kesavananda Bharati case formally established the "basic structure" theory and held that the basic features of the constitution include: constitutional supremacy, the principle of rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, etc. This triggered widespread debate over the interpretation of the Indian Constitution and the powers of Parliament. This theory was not explicitly enumerated, however, and trial courts gradually expanded the concept in different cases.
“Amending the constitution does not mean that the identity of the constitution can be changed. This is the basic characteristic of the constitution that cannot be changed.”
In the early days, the position of the Supreme Court of India seemed to be that Congress could amend the Constitution without restriction. However, the Golaknath case in 1967 overturned this concept. The court held that the fundamental rights in the constitution should be regarded as transcendent and cannot be changed by means of constitutional amendments. This indicates that constitutional amendment is not an unrestricted legal process.
In the following Kesavananda Bharati case, the court's judgment was made by 7 judges. The majority opinion emphasized that "no part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, cannot be modified by Parliament, but changes to the basic structure of the Constitution are prohibited. ". This judgment not only provided insights into the Golaknath case of the past but also paved the way for today's interpretation of the Constitution.
It is worth noting that the decision in this case was later applied to a series of cases involving congressional constitutional amendments. The most representative case was in 1975, when the Indian Congress tried to consolidate its power through the Emergency Act, including the Minerva Mills case and the Indira Nehru Gandhi case. The courts ruled that some provisions were unconstitutional based on the basic structure theory. This further confirms the court’s legal authority to supervise Congress’ constitutional amendments.
"The Supreme Court's position is that Congress can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure."
The basic structure theory was undoubtedly proposed to protect the democratic system and basic human rights, and to prevent unfavorable changes to the constitution due to temporary political needs. But the theory has also sparked heated discussions about congressional power and court intervention. Over time, the basic structure theory gradually matured in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and became a reference for the legal systems of other countries.
However, the application of basic structure theory is not accepted in all countries. In countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, even if it was once rejected, it was still reviewed in certain legal contexts. This also reflects the multiple interpretations and applications of the same theory under different legal environments.
The Kesavananda Bharati case and its extended basic structure theory have greatly influenced the development of India's constitution. To this day, the theory is considered the guardian of democratic institutions and has continued to evolve despite numerous legal challenges. As the political situation changes and society's awareness of rights increases, can this theory continue to maintain its stability and authority?
