Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

W.P.(C) Nos.18749 & 11107 of 2024

vi) The impugned amendments are an attempt to weaken the judicial system, by encroaching upon the independence of the judiciary.

vii) It is also relevant to note that there are no provisions in other States wherein, the competent authority in relation to the Chief Minister is the State Legislative Assembly and that of a member of the State Legislative Assembly is the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly. A perusal of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 and the Tamil Nadu Lok Ayukta Act, 2018, would show that the competent authority in relation to the Chief Minister is the Governor. Also, in Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the competent authority in relation to a member of the State Legislature is the Governor acting in his discretion. As such, the amendments are violative of the basic structure doctrine and hence, liable to be struck down.

50. A.N. Ray, C.J. in Indira Nehru Gandhi case [Anshuman Singh Rathore v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine All 857] held that the constitutional validity of a statute depends entirely on the existence of the legislative power and the express provision in Article 13. Since the legislation is not subject to any other constitutional limitation, applying the basic structure doctrine to test the validity of a statute will amount to "rewriting the Constitution". [Indira Nehru Gandhi case, 1975 Supp SCC 1, paras 134 and 137] The learned Judge further observed that application of the undefinable theory of basic structure to test the validity of a statute would denude legislatures of the power of legislation and deprive them of laying down legislative policies. [Indira Nehru Gandhi case, 1975 W.P.(C) Nos.18749 & 11107 of 2024 Supp SCC 1, p. 61, para 136 "136. The theory of basic structures or basic features is an exercise in imponderables. Basic structures or basic features are indefinable. The legislative entries are the fields of legislation. The pith and substance doctrine has been applied in order to find out legislative competency, and eliminate encroachment on legislative entries. If the theory of basic structures or basic features will be applied to legislative measures it will denude Parliament and State Legislatures of the power of legislation and deprive them of laying down legislative policies. This will be encroachment on the separation of powers."] K.K. Mathew, J. similarly observed that the concept of a basic structure is "too vague and indefinite to provide a yardstick to determine the validity of an ordinary law". [Indira Nehru Gandhi case, 1975 Supp SCC 1, para 357] Y.V. Chandrachud, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that constitutional amendment and ordinary laws operate in different fields and are subject to different limitations. [Indira Nehru Gandhi case, 1975 Supp SCC 1, pp. 261-62, paras 691 and 692"691. ... The constitutional amendments may, on the ratio of the Fundamental Rights case [Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, W.P.(C) Nos.18749 & 11107 of 2024 (1973) 4 SCC 225], be tested on the anvil of basic structure. But apart from the principle that a case is only an authority for what it decides, it does not logically follow from the majority judgment in the Fundamental Rights case [Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225] that ordinary legislation must also answer the same test as a constitutional amendment. Ordinary laws have to answer two tests for their validity: ( 1) The law must be within the legislative competence of the legislature as defined and specified in Chapter I, Part XI of the Constitution, and (2) it must not offend against the provisions of Articles 13(1) and ( 2) of the Constitution.

51. The majority in Indira Nehru Gandhi [Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1] held that the constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure doctrine. However, M.H. Beg, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) dissented with the majority view by observing that the basic structure test can be used to test the validity of statutes because statutes cannot go beyond the range of constituent power. [ Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1, para 622]

(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."]