Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

b)The aforesaid observations have been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, (2010) 11 S.C.C. 1 on the following lines :-

99. MBA contended that constitution of a Tribunal to transfer the entire company law jurisdiction of the High Court was violative of the doctrine of separation of power and independence of judiciary which are parts of basic structure of the Constitution. The Union of India countered it by contending that a Legislation cannot be challenged on the ground it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. It is now well settled that only constitutional amendments can be subjected to the test of basic features doctrine. Legislative measures are not subjected to basic features or basic structure or basic framework. The Legislation can be declared unconstitutional or invalid only on two grounds namely (i) lack of legislative competence and (ii) violation of any fundamental rights or any provision of the Constitution [See : Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1; Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, 2006 (7) SCC 1; and State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co., 1996 (3) SCC 709]. The reason for this was given by Chandrachud J. in Indira Gandhi, thus :

691. Basic structure, by the majority judgment [in Keshavanda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225], is not a part of the fundamental rights nor indeed a provision of the Constitution. The theory of basic structure is woven out of the conspectus of the Constitution and the amending power is subjected to it because it is a constituent power. "The power to amend the fundamental instrument cannot carry with it the power to destroy its essential features' - this, in brief, is the arch of the theory of basic structure. It is wholly out of place in matters relating to the validity of ordinary laws made under the Constitution.