Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

52. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India [State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608, para 238], N.L. Untwalia, J. (writing for himself, P.N. Shinghal, J., and Jaswant Singh, J.) reiterated that the validity of a statute cannot be tested for violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. Y.V. Chandrachud, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) also observed that a statute cannot be invalidated on supposed grounds so long as it is within the legislative competence of the legislature and consistent with Part III of the Constitution. [State of Karnataka case, (1977) 4 SCC 608, para 197] However, M.H. Beg, C.J. observed that testing a statute for violation of basic structure does not "add to the contents of the W.P.(C) Nos.18749 & 11107 of 2024 Constitution". [State of Karnataka case, (1977) 4 SCC 608, para 128] He held that any inference about a limitation based on the basic structure doctrine upon legislative power must co-relate to the express provisions of the Constitution. [ State of Karnataka case, (1977) 4 SCC 608, para 123]
53. In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India [Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1, p. 67, para 107 "107. The basic structure theory imposes limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution under Article 368 could be challenged on the ground of violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. An ordinary legislation cannot be so challenged. The challenge to a law made, within its legislative competence, by Parliament on the ground of violation of the basic structure of the Constitution is thus not available to the petitioners."] a Constitution Bench held that ordinary legislation cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. Statutes, including State legislation, can only be challenged for violating the provisions of the Constitution. [Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1 : 3 SCEC 35, para 116] However, W.P.(C) Nos.18749 & 11107 of 2024 in Madras Bar Assn.v. Union of India [Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1, p. 190, para 109 : (2014) 187 Comp Cas 426 : (2014) 368 ITR 42 :
(2014) 29 GSTR 12 : (2014) 75 VST 12 "109. ... This Court has repeatedly held that an amendment to the provisions of the Constitution would not be sustainable if it violated the "basic structure" of the Constitution, even though the amendment had been carried out by following the procedure contemplated under "Part XI" of the Constitution. This leads to the determination that the "basic structure" is inviolable. In our view, the same would apply to all other legislations (other than amendments to the Constitution) as well, even though the legislation had been enacted by following the prescribed procedure, and was within the domain of the enacting legislature, any infringement to the "basic structure" would be unacceptable."] a Constitution Bench applied the basic structure doctrine to test the validity of parliamentary legislation seeking to transfer judicial power from High Courts to tribunals. J.S. Khehar, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was), writing for the Constitution Bench, held that the basic structure of the Constitution will stand violated if Parliament does not ensure that the newly created W.P.(C) Nos.18749 & 11107 of 2024 tribunals do not "conforms with the salient characteristics and standards of the court sought to be substituted". [Madras Bar Assn. case, (2014) 10 SCC 1, p. 218, para 136 : (2014) 187 Comp Cas 426 : (2014) 368 ITR 42 : (2014) 29 GSTR 12 : (2014) 75 VST 12"136. ... (iii) The "basic structure" of the Constitution will stand violated if while enacting legislation pertaining to transfer of judicial power, Parliament does not ensure that the newly created court/tribunal conforms with the salient characteristics and standards of the court sought to be substituted."]

608. SupremeCourt Advocates-on-RecordAssn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1, p. 621, para 795" 795. For the purposes of the present discussion, I would prefer to follow the view expressed by a Bench of seven learned Judges in State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608 [seven-Judge Bench] that it is only an amendment of the Constitution that can be challenged on the ground that it violates the basic structure of the W.P.(C) Nos.18749 & 11107 of 2024 Constitution--a statute cannot be challenged on the ground that it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. [The only exception to this perhaps could be a statute placed in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution.] The principles for challenging the constitutionality of a statute are quite different."] that a statute cannot be challenged for violating the basic structure doctrine.