Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"1159. I will now consider the question which has been strenuously contended, namely, that there are no essential features, that every feature in the Constitution is essential, and if this were not so, the amending power under the Constitution will apply only to now essential features which it would be difficult to envisage was the only purpose of the framers in inscribing Article 368 and that, therefore, there is no warrant for such a concept to be read into the Consitution xxxxxxxxxxx. If the constitution is considered as a mechanism, or call it an organism or a piece of constitutional engineering, whichever it is, it must have a structure, or a composition or a base or foundation. What it is can only be ascertained, if we examine the provisions which the Hon'ble Chief Justice has done in great detail after which he has instanced the features which constitute the basic structure. I do not intend to cover the same field once again. There is nothing vague or unascertainable in the Preamble and if what is stated therein is subject to this criticism it would be equally true of what is stated in Article 39(b) and (c) as these are also objectives fundamental in the governance of the country which the State is enjoined to achieve for the amelioration and happiness of its people. The elements of the basic structure are indicated in the Preamble and translated in the various provisions of the Constitution. The edifice of our Constitution is built upon and stands on several props, remove any of them, the Constitution collapses. These are : (1) Sovereign Democratic Republic (2) Justice, social, economic and political; (3) Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; (4) Equality of status and of opportunity. Each one of these is important and collectively they assure a way of life to the people of India which the Constitution guarantees. To withdraw any of the above elements the structure will not survive and it will not be the same Constitution, or this Constitution nor can it maintain its identity if something quite different is substituted in its place, which the sovereign Will of the people alone can do.......... If this is the system which is the foundation of a democratic republic, it is unthinkable that it can exist without elements (2) to (4) above either collectively or separately.
............. A sovereign democratic republic, Parliamentary democracy, the three organs of the State, certainly in my view constitute the basic structure. But do the fundamental rights in Part III and Directive Principles in Part IV constitute the essential elements of the basic structure of our Constitution in that the Constitution will be the Constitution without them? In other words if parts III and IV or either of them are totally abrogated, can it be said that the structure of the Constitution as an organic instrument establishing sovereign democratic republic as envisaged in the preamble remains the same? In that sense as I understand the sovereign democratic republic, it cannot; without either fundamental rights or directive principles, what can such a government be if it does not ensure political economic, or social justice."
"(vii). The power of amendment under Article 368 does not include the power to abrogate the Constitution nor does it include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution......."

In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 at paras 61 and 62 it is held thus :-

"61. The significance of the perception that Parts III and IV together constitute the core of commitment to social revolution and they, together are the conscience of the Constitution is to be traced to a deep understanding of the scheme of the Indian Constitution. Granville Austin's observation brings out the true position that Parts III and IV are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less important than the other. You snap one and the other will lose its efficiacy. They are like a twin formula for achieving the social revolution, which is the ideal which the visionary founders of the Constitution set before themselves. In other words, the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.

(vii) The importance attached to the Directive Principles of the State flows from the Preamble to the Constitution of India. The importance so attached is reflected in the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court :-

AIR 2000 SC 2695 AIR 1999 SC 1160 AIR 1992 SC 523 (sic) AIR 1979 SC 65 AIR 1994 SC 2696 The law is that Directive Principles being the basic structure of the Constitution, the same shall not be either repealed or abrogated. In AIR 2000 SC 498 (Indrasawhney v. Union of India) at para 66 it is held that Legislative or executive action violating basic structure of the Constitution is unconstitutional. The same is extracted hereunder :- ' "66. What we mean to say is that Parliament and the Legislatures in this country cannot transgress the basic feature of the Constitution, namely, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16(1) is a facet. Whether creamy layer is not excluded or whether forward castes get included in the list of Backward Classes, the position will be the same, namely, that there will be a breach not only of Article 14 but of the basic structure of the Constitution. The non exclusion of the creamy layer or the inclusion of forward castes in the list of Backward Classes will, therefore, be totally illegal. Such an illegality offending the root of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be perpetuated even by constitutional amendment. The Kerala Legislature is, therefore, least competent to perpetuate such an illegal discrimination. What even Parliament cannot do, the Kerala Legislature cannot achieve".