Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The learned Advocate General Mr. Ravi Kadam, referred to the following judgments with regard to the "Basic Structure Doctrine"-

The learned Advocate General Mr. Ravi Kadam referred to the following judgments with regard to "Basic Structure Doctrine":

1. R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1994) Supp (1) SCC 324. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 126, 127, 128, 130, 133, 134 and 135 of the judgment has observed as under:

Paragraph No. 126: An examination of the constitutional scheme would indicate that the concept of `one person one vote' is in its very nature considerably tolerant of imbalances and departures from a very strict application and enforcement. The provision in the Constitution indicating proportionality of representation is necessarily a broad, general and logical principle but not intended to be expressed with arithmetical precision. Articles 332 (3-A) and 333 are illustrative instances. The principle of mathematical proportionality of representation is not a declared basic requirement in each and every part of the territory of India. Accommodations and adjustments, having regard to the political maturity, awareness and degree of political development in different parts of India, might supply the justification for even non-elected Assemblies wholly or in part, in certain parts of the country. The differing degrees of political development and maturity of various parts of the country, may not justify standards based on mathematical accuracy. Articles 371-A a special provision in respect of State of Nagaland, 239-A and 240 illustrate the permissible areas and degrees of departure. The systemic deficiencies in the plenitude of the doctrine of full and effective representation has not been understood in the constitutional philosophy as derogating from the democratic principle. Indeed, the argument in the case, in the perspective, is really one of violation of the equality principle rather than of the democratic principle. The inequalities in representation in the present cases are an inheritance and compulsion from the past. Historical considerations have justified a differential treatment.

Paragraph No. 135:

We are of the opinion that the provisions in the particular situation and the permissible latitudes cannot be said to be unconstitutional.

Page 1641

2. Dr. C.Surekha v. Union of India . The relevant paragraph No. 4 reads as under:

Andhra Pradesh institutions were kept out from the purview of the Scheme by order of this Court. It is true that the direction in the order dated July 26, 1984 left the matter open to be agitated and petitioner's application seems to come within the limits left open. Mr. Choudhary appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh referred to the historical background leading to the incorporation of Article 371-D in the Constitution by the 32nd Amendment with effect from July 1, 1974. The decision of this Court in P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh does not support the petitioner's contention that Article 371-D militates against the basic structure of the Constitution. The question that was considered by the Constitution Bench in Sambamurthy case was denial of judicial review on the principle accepted in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Sampat case (S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India , (reference) decision. This Court came to hold that Clause (5) which provided that the final order of the Administrative Tribunal shall become effective by its confirmation by the State Government and it was open to the State Government to modify or annul that order within 90 days militated against the Doctrine of Basic Structure. At the same time, the Court held that Article 371-D(3) was valid and intra vires the amending powers of the Parliament. This clearly means that the Scheme of Article 371-D was valid and the provision in Clause (5) along was bad. Clause (10) of Article 371-D provides : The provisions of this Article and any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.

25. From the above, the first main objection raised was that conferring such financial powers on the Governor of Maharashtra, through Article 371(2) of the Constitution of India, would be violative of the "Basic Structure Doctrine".

26. In that behalf, after considering all the judgments referred to hereinabove cited by Mr. Aney, the learned senior counsel and Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned Advocate General, we are clearly of the view that there is no violation of the "Basic Structure Doctrine" for the following reasons:

(a) Almost an identical provision under Article 371-F(f), protecting Sikkim was upheld by the Supreme Court in R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, as not violative basic structure doctrine.

(b) "The Legislature has always the power to make special laws to attain particular objects and for that purpose has authority to select or classify Page 1644 persons, objects or transactions upon which the law is intended to operate. Differential treatment becomes unlawful only when it is arbitrary or not supported by a rational relation with the object of the statute.... Where application of unequal laws is reasonably justified for historical reasons, a geographical classification founded on those historical reasons would be upheld."