Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The petitioner, however, relied upon the judgment in Lal Chand's case (supra), to contend that Article 243 ZG(b) of the Constitution, did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. It was asserted in support of the maintainability of the writ petition that in Lal Chand's case (supra), while considering the provisions of Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution, it was held that the High Court's jurisdiction, to entertain a writ petition was not barred and Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution would have to be read down, and subject to Article 226 of the Constitution. The above ratio was based on the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution and it was held that as Article 226 of the Constitution was integral to the basic structure of the Constitution, Articles 243O and 243ZG, could not be read to create a bar on the powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution, and, therefore, they would have to be read down, and subject to the powers conferred upon a high court, under Article 226 of the Constitution.

9. There is no dispute that one of the pillars that supports the edifice of the Constitution is the power of judicial review which is integral to and an inalienable part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The doctrine of "basic structure", though not defined in, or delimited in any part of the Constitution was propounded, in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala and thereafter affirmed in numerous judicial pronouncements including Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789 and L. Chandra Kumar (supra). In a recent judgment, I.R. Coelhlo (dead) by L.R.s v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2007(2) SCC 292, the Apex Court, opined thus: