Constitutional Legacy of the Basic Structure Doctrine and the Call for Indianising Jurisprudence

Basic Structure Doctrine Latest News

• At the inauguration of the International Mooting Academy at O.P. Jindal University, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with other Supreme Court judges, reflected on the constitutional legacy.
• He highlighted the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the centrality of the Basic Structure Doctrine, and the evolving idea of ‘Indianisation’ of the legal system.

Significance of Kesavananda Bharati Judgment

• Basic Structure doctrine: It is a legal principle, established by the SC in the landmark 1973 case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, that states the fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament. 
• Basic Structure as constitutional conscience:
  • CJI described the Basic Structure Doctrine as “the conscience that keeps our democracy from drifting into absolutism.”
  • The doctrine is not a mere precedent but a foundational affirmation of constitutionalism and rule of law.
• An act of constitutional archaeology:
  • The CJI said the doctrine was not “judicial fancy” but an uncovering of principles embedded within the Constitution.
  • Judges “unearthed” its inherent moral core: liberty, equality, fraternity, human dignity.
• The living constitution:
  • The Constitution’s strength lies not in rigidity but its ability to adapt without losing moral compass.
  • Each generation must interpret it as a “living charge”, not a frozen document.

‹ ›

Judicial Perspectives on Basic Structure

• Judicial independence and rule of law (Justice B.V. Nagarathna):
  • The doctrine flows from judicial independence, immune from political pressure.
  • It resulted in the protection of the core features (supremacy of Constitution, separation of powers, fundamental rights, judicial review) of the Constitution.
• Constitutional supremacy (Justice P.S. Narasimha): Basic Structure is not judicial supremacy but affirmation of constitutional supremacy.
• Natural rights foundation (Justice M.M. Sundresh): Basic Structure was never defined because it existed as a natural right embedded in justice, liberty, and equality.

Kesavananda as a Moral Milestone (CJI)

• Resilience of Indian democracy:
  • The judgment proved that a young republic could assert a moral conscience comparable to older democracies.
  • It showcased India’s constitutional culture that bends without breaking.
• Symbolism – The constitutional khaat:
  • The constitution is like a khaat (text = frame; institutions = legs).
  • Restraint, balance, moral discipline are interlaced ropes that hold everything together.

Indianisation of the Legal System

• Swadeshi jurisprudence:
  • The SC noted that despite influences from UK and US, Indian interpretation has developed a distinct ‘swadeshi’ colour.
  • The government also endorsed building a unique Indian jurisprudence.
• Earlier calls for indianisation:
  • Justice P.N. Bhagwati (1986): India must not rely on “crutches of foreign legal order”.
  • Justice N.V. Ramana: Indianisation needed for easy access to justice, especially for rural litigants.
  • Justice S.A. Bobde: Indian texts already reflected concepts such as privacy.
  • Cases citing Indian tradition: Decriminalising adultery and Sabarimala temple entry to women of a certain age quoted heavily from the Manusmriti.
• Decolonising Indian legal thought: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer criticized over-reliance on colonial jurisprudence and urged recognition of ancient Indian legal thinkers: Manu, Kautilya, Yajnavalkya, Brihaspati, Narada, etc.

Technological Modernisation of Justice System

• PM (Narendra Modi): Called for “ease of justice” even for the poorest. Highlighted virtual hearings, translated judgments for greater accessibility.
• Union Law Minister (Arjun Ram Meghwal): Judicial competence now requires e-courts, AI-enabled systems. Invoked B.R. Ambedkar’s warning: “Freedom is not a licence to do whatever we want.”

Key Challenges

• Balancing amendability with constitutional stability: Reconciling Parliament’s power to amend with preservation of Basic Structure.
• Avoiding judicial overreach vs. ensuring constitutional supremacy: Maintaining legitimacy of judicial review without perceptions of activism.
• Indianisation vs. universal constitutional values: Integrating indigenous traditions while upholding modern democratic principles.
• Bridging the accessibility gap: Ensuring that technology-driven reforms reach rural and marginalised populations.

Way Forward

• Strengthening constitutional culture: Promote civics education and constitutional awareness at all levels.
• Continued modernisation: Expand e-courts, digital filing, translation tools, and AI-based case management.
• Developing native jurisprudence: Encourage academic engagement with ancient Indian legal principles while retaining universal constitutional ethics.
• Preserving institutional independence: Protect judiciary from political interference to uphold rule of law.
• Harmonising tradition with modernity: Draw from Indian intellectual heritage without compromising rights-based democratic framework.

Conclusion

• The enduring centrality of the Basic Structure Doctrine is not merely as a judicial creation but as the moral anchor of Indian democracy. 
• The Kesavananda Bharati judgment remains a guiding force as India navigates modernisation, institutional reforms and debates on Indianising its legal system. 
• The call is for a justice system that is technologically advanced, socially accessible, constitutionally rooted, and culturally resonant, ensuring that the Republic continues to uphold liberty, equality, fraternity, and human dignity.

Source: IE | TH