Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: basic structure doctrine in Rajendra N Shah vs Union Of India & Anr on 22 April, 2013Matching Fragments
151.
In conclusion, we hold that:
[i] A law that abrogates or abridges rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution may violate the basic structure doctrine or it may not. If former is the consequence of the law, whether by amendment of any article of Part III or by an insertion in the Ninth Schedule, such law will have to be invalidated in exercise of judicial review power of the Court. The validity or invalidity would be tested on the principles laid down in this judgment.
[ii] The majority judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case read with Indira Gandhi case requires the validity of each new constitutional amendment to be judged on its own merits. The actual effect and impact of the law on the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken into account for determining whether or not it destroys basic structure. The impact test would determine the validity of the challenge.
[iv] Justification for conferring protection, not blanket protection, on the laws included in the Ninth Schedule by constitutional amendments shall be a matter of constitutional adjudication by examining the nature and extent of infraction of a fundamental right by a statute, sought to be constitutionally protected, and on the touchstone of the basic structure doctrine as reflected in Article 21 read with Article 14 and Article 19 by application of the rights test and the essence of the right test taking the synoptic view of the articles in Part III as held in Indira Gandhi case. Applying the above tests to the Ninth Schedule laws, if the infraction affects the basic structure then such law[s] will not get the protection of the Ninth Schedule.
21. At this stage, we may profitably refer to the following observations of the nine-bench-decision of the Supreme Court in the case of I.R. Coelho [dead] by L.Rs. v. State of T.N. (supra):-
By addition of the words 'constituent power' in Article 368, the amending body, namely, Parliament does not become the original Constituent Assembly. It remains a Parliament under a controlled Constitution. Even after the words 'constituent power' are inserted in Article 368, the limitations of doctrine of basic structure would continue to apply to the Parliament. It is on this premise that clauses 4 and 5 inserted in Article 368 by 42nd Amendment were struck down in Minerva Mills case.