Political Science Notes Part 6: Basic Structure and Parliamentary System for UPSC, PSC, SSC CGL

Detailed Notes

Chapter 11: Basic Structure of the Constitution

Introduction

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, limiting Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 to ensure that the Constitution’s core features remain inviolable. As the Supreme Court has stated, “Parliament is not supreme, the Constitution is supreme”, emphasizing that while amendments are permissible, they cannot destroy the Constitution’s fundamental identity. This doctrine protects India’s democratic framework and ensures its enduring relevance.

Origin of the Basic Structure Doctrine

• Global Influence:
  • Germany: The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) protects core principles from amendments.
  • USA: Certain constitutional principles are considered unamendable.
• Indian Context:
  • Evolved through judicial pronouncements rather than explicit constitutional text.
  • Developed to balance Parliament’s flexibility with the need to preserve the Constitution’s essence.

Major Court Cases Related to Basic Structure

1. Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
   • Issue: Challenged the 1st Constitutional Amendment (curbing freedom of speech, adding Ninth Schedule).
   • Ruling: Parliament has unlimited power to amend any part, including Fundamental Rights.
   • Significance: Initially affirmed Parliament’s supremacy in amendments.
2. Sajjan Singh Case (1965)
   • Issue: Validated the 17th Amendment (expanding Ninth Schedule).
   • Ruling: Reaffirmed Parliament’s full amending power.
   • Significance: Continued the trend of unrestricted amendment authority.
3. Golaknath Case (1967)
   • Issue: Challenged Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
   • Ruling: Declared Fundamental Rights unamendable, limiting Parliament’s power.
   • Response: Parliament passed the 24th Amendment (1971), asserting its authority to amend any part, including Fundamental Rights.
   • Significance: Marked a shift toward judicial restrictions on amendments.
4. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
   • Context: Largest-ever 13-judge Constitutional Bench reviewed the 24th Amendment.
   • Ruling:
     • Parliament can amend any part, including Fundamental Rights.
     • However, amendments cannot alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
   • Significance: Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, a landmark in Indian jurisprudence, balancing amendment flexibility with constitutional integrity.
5. Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975)
   • Issue: Challenged the 39th Amendment, which shielded the Prime Minister’s election from judicial review.
   • Ruling: Struck down parts of the amendment, declaring free and fair elections as part of the Basic Structure.
   • Significance: Reinforced judicial oversight over amendments.
6. Minerva Mills Case (1980)
   • Issue: Challenged the 42nd Amendment, which sought to make Parliament’s amending power unlimited.
   • Ruling:
     • Struck down provisions granting unlimited amending power.
     • Declared the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs as part of the Basic Structure.
   • Significance: Strengthened the doctrine, ensuring constitutional checks and balances.
7. Other Key Cases:
   • Waman Rao Case (1981): Upheld the Basic Structure Doctrine for amendments post-1973, allowing judicial review of Ninth Schedule laws.
   • S.R. Bommai Case (1994): Affirmed federalism and secularism as Basic Structure elements.
   • I.R. Coelho Case (2007): Ruled that Ninth Schedule laws post-1973 are subject to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.

Elements of the Basic Structure

The Supreme Court has not provided an exhaustive list, allowing the doctrine to evolve. Key elements include:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Rule of Law
• Separation of Powers
• Judicial Review
• Free and Fair Elections
• Sovereign, Democratic, Republican Nature
• Secular Character
• Federal Character
• Welfare State and Social Justice
• Unity and Integrity of the Nation
• Freedom and Dignity of the Individual
• Independence of Judiciary
• Parliamentary System of Government

Features of the Basic Structure Doctrine

• Judicial Innovation: Not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, purely a judicial creation.
• Flexible and Evolving: Adapts to societal changes, with courts determining new elements as needed.
• Protector of Democracy: Prevents authoritarian amendments that could undermine democratic principles.
• Limits Parliamentary Power: Even a supermajority cannot alter the Constitution’s core features.

Importance of the Basic Structure Doctrine

• Protects Fundamental Rights: Shields rights from arbitrary amendments.
• Preserves Democratic Values: Ensures democracy, secularism, and federalism remain intact.
• Balances Flexibility and Stability: Allows constitutional evolution while safeguarding its essence.
• Prevents Constitutional Dictatorship: Stops majoritarian governments from abolishing key features like elections or judicial independence.
• Example: Without the doctrine, a ruling party with a two-thirds majority could theoretically eliminate democracy or secularism.

Criticism of the Basic Structure Doctrine

• Lack of Constitutional Basis: Critics argue it’s a judicial overreach, not rooted in the Constitution’s text.
• Judicial Supremacy: Unelected judges limiting elected Parliament’s power raises democratic concerns.
• Ambiguity: No fixed list of Basic Structure elements creates uncertainty.
• Counterpoint:
  • Strengthens democracy by protecting its core from transient majorities.
  • Widely accepted as a safeguard for constitutional integrity.

Recent Applications

• Reservation Policies: Struck down policies violating equality (e.g., excessive reservations).
• President’s Rule: Upheld federalism in S.R. Bommai (1994), limiting misuse of Article 356.
• Judicial Independence: Struck down the NJAC Act (2015) for undermining judicial autonomy.

Conclusion

The Basic Structure Doctrine, born in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), is a vital safeguard of India’s constitutional framework. It ensures that the Constitution’s core principles—democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial independence—remain inviolable, protecting against authoritarian amendments. By balancing parliamentary power with judicial oversight, the doctrine upholds the Constitution’s supremacy, ensuring India’s democratic ethos endures.

Chapter 12: Parliamentary System

Introduction

The Indian Constitution establishes a Parliamentary System of government at both the Centre and State levels, modeled on the British Westminster system rather than the Presidential system (e.g., USA). This system ensures the Executive (government) is accountable to the Legislature (Parliament), fostering responsible governance suited to India’s diversity.

Meaning of Parliamentary System

• Definition: The executive derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the legislature, with a fusion of powers between the two (unlike the separation in presidential systems).
• Key Principle: The Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, must maintain the confidence of the Lok Sabha to remain in power.
• Significance: Promotes accountability and responsiveness in governance.

Features of the Parliamentary System

1. Collective Responsibility:
   • The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75).
   • A no-confidence motion can remove the entire government.
2. Dual Executive:
   • Nominal Executive: President (ceremonial head).
   • Real Executive: Prime Minister and Council of Ministers wield actual power (Article 74).
3. Leadership of Prime Minister: The Prime Minister is the keystone of the government, coordinating policies and decisions.
4. Dissolution of Lower House: The Lok Sabha can be dissolved before its term, triggering elections (Article 83).
5. Secrecy of Procedure: Ministers take an Oath of Secrecy, ensuring confidentiality of government decisions.
6. Political Homogeneity: The Council of Ministers typically belongs to the same party or coalition, ensuring unified governance.

Merits of the Parliamentary System

• Harmony Between Legislature and Executive: Smooth policy passage due to the government’s parliamentary majority.
• Responsible Government: Accountability through no-confidence motions and debates.
• Prevents Dictatorship: Regular elections and parliamentary oversight limit authoritarianism.
• Flexibility: Easy government changes without constitutional crises.
• Wide Representation: Coalition governments accommodate diverse groups, reflecting India’s pluralism.

Demerits of the Parliamentary System

• Instability: Frequent government falls, especially in coalition eras (e.g., 1990s coalition governments).
• Policy Incontinuity: Shifts in government lead to policy changes, disrupting long-term plans.
• Cabinet Dominance: Strong majorities can lead to Prime Ministerial dominance, sidelining Parliament.
• Delayed Decisions: Need for legislative support can slow decision-making.
• Partisanship: Party interests may override national priorities.

Reasons for Adopting Parliamentary System in India

• Colonial Familiarity: British parliamentary traditions were well-known from colonial governance (e.g., Government of India Act, 1935).
• Diversity: Accommodates India’s linguistic, cultural, and social diversity through inclusive representation.
• Responsible Governance: Ensures executive accountability to Parliament, avoiding autocracy.
• Avoiding Deadlocks: Unlike the Presidential system, prevents conflicts between executive and legislature (seen in the USA).
• Historical Precedent: The Indian National Congress operated like a parliamentary body pre-independence, with debates and elections.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s View: Emphasized daily and periodic assessment of government responsibility through Parliament and elections.

Comparison: Parliamentary vs. Presidential System

Distinctive Features of India’s Parliamentary System

• Active President: The President is not merely a rubber stamp; can return bills for reconsideration (Article 111).
• Prime Ministerial Dominance: Often described as a “Prime Ministerial Government” due to the PM’s central role.
• Anti-Defection Law (1985): Tenth Schedule prevents MPs from switching parties, enhancing government stability.
• Judicial Interventions: Courts ensure parliamentary integrity, e.g., ordering floor tests in majority disputes (S.R. Bommai, 1994).

Challenges to India’s Parliamentary System

• Decline of Debates: Increasing disruptions and adjournments reduce constructive discussions.
• Personality Cult: Focus on leaders (e.g., PM-centric elections) overshadows institutions.
• Coalition Politics: Ideological clashes in coalitions hinder collective responsibility.
• Criminalization of Politics: MPs with criminal charges undermine parliamentary credibility.
• Weak Opposition: A strong opposition is vital for effective checks and balances.

Recent Reforms and Suggestions

• Fixed Lok Sabha Term: Proposals to limit premature dissolutions for stability.
• Strengthening Committees: More bills referred to Parliamentary Committees for scrutiny.
• Electoral Reforms: Promote clean candidates and transparent funding.
• Reviving Parliamentary Ethos: Encourage constructive debates, reduce disruptions.

Conclusion

India’s Parliamentary System, rooted in the Westminster model, suits its diverse and complex society by ensuring responsible governance and inclusivity. Despite challenges like disruptions and coalition instability, it remains effective through mechanisms like the Anti-Defection Law and judicial oversight. As Jawaharlal Nehru noted, “Parliamentary democracy is a mode of seeking justice and truth”, and strengthening parliamentary processes will enhance India’s democratic fabric.