Fundamental Rights - Basic Structure - Art 12 13

Summary

This video provides an in-depth analysis of the term 'State' under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, highlighting its importance in protecting fundamental rights. It discusses the evolution of the term 'other authorities' and its impact on expanding state definition. The script also covers Article 13, focusing on judicial review of laws against fundamental rights, the doctrine of eclipse, severability, and the landmark doctrine of basic structure that safeguards the Constitution's core elements from legislative overreach.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The term 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India includes the government and Parliament of India, the government and legislature of each state, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India.
• 📚 Fundamental rights are based on human rights, which are embodiments of universal natural rights, and the state must not transgress these rights.
• 🚫 The state is prohibited from going beyond constitutional permissibility to transgress fundamental rights, as it would defeat their purpose.
• 📖 The scope of the term 'other authorities' has been expanded by the Supreme Court of India through various judgments, thereby widening the protection of fundamental rights.
• 🏛️ In the case of University of Madras vs. Santai, the court applied the rule of 'eiusdem generis' to interpret 'other authorities', but this was later rejected in Ambica vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
• 📊 The court laid down tests in the case of Arieti to determine if an authority is an instrumentality of the state, considering factors like government control and public functions.
• 🏦 In S. Prash vs. Union of India, a company was for the first time considered an authority within the meaning of Article 12, based on the 'brooding presence of the state'.
• 📜 Article 13 of the Constitution of India is crucial for judicial review of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
• ⚖️ The doctrine of 'eclipse' was established in the case of Bikaji vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which states that pre-constitutional laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights are not completely void but continue to provide relief for rights accrued within their period of application.
• 📑 The doctrine of severability, established in RMDC vs. Union of India, helps determine whether an inconsistent part of a law is separable from the consistent part, affecting the law's validity.
• 🏛️ The basic structure doctrine, introduced in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, asserts that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution even through amendments.

Q & A

What does the term 'State' mean under Article 12 of the Constitution of India?

Under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the term 'State' includes the government and Parliament of India, the government and legislature of each state, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the government of India.

What is the significance of the term 'other authorities' in Article 12?

The term 'other authorities' is significant as it determines the scope of entities that can be considered as the 'State'. The broader the interpretation, the more entities are included, thereby expanding the protection of fundamental rights.

How did the interpretation of 'other authorities' evolve over time?

Initially, 'other authorities' were interpreted to mean institutions similar to Parliament and legislatures with rule-making powers. This changed over time to include statutory bodies and eventually non-statutory bodies, with the Supreme Court laying down tests to determine if an entity is an instrumentality of the state.

What was the landmark case that expanded the definition of 'other authorities' to include a company?

The landmark case that expanded the definition of 'other authorities' to include a company was S. Prashant versus Union of India, where the court noted the determinant factor as the 'brooding presence of the state' behind the operations of the body.

What are the tests laid down by the Supreme Court to determine if a body is an instrumentality of the state?

The tests include whether the government holds the entire share capital, if the body is financially dependent on the state, if it enjoys a monopoly status conferred by the state, if there is deep and pervasive state control, or if it performs public functions closely related to those performed by the government.

What is the purpose of Article 13 of the Constitution of India?

Article 13 is a key provision that lays down the scope for judicial review of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights. It ensures that laws do not contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

What does Clause 1 of Article 13 imply for pre-constitutional laws?

Clause 1 of Article 13 declares that all pre-constitutional laws are void to the extent they are inconsistent with fundamental rights. This gave rise to the doctrine of eclipse, which states that inconsistent laws are not completely wiped out but continue to provide relief for rights accrued within their period of application.

How does the doctrine of severability relate to Article 13?

The doctrine of severability, established in the case of R.M.D.C. versus Union of India, helps determine whether an inconsistent part of a law can be separated from the consistent part. If the parts are separable and the remaining part can stand independently, only the inconsistent part is rendered void.

What is the doctrine of basic structure and how does it relate to Article 13?

The doctrine of basic structure, established in the case of Kesavananda Bharati versus State of Kerala, states that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This doctrine is closely linked to the limitations imposed by Article 13 on legislative power.

What are some elements that constitute the basic structure of the Constitution of India?

Elements of the basic structure include the supremacy of the Constitution, democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, the mandate to build a welfare state, and the unity and integrity of the nation.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Overview of the Term 'State' in the Indian Constitution

The paragraph discusses the term 'State' as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing its role in safeguarding fundamental rights. It highlights that the state includes the government and Parliament of India, state governments and legislatures, and local or other authorities within India's territory. The paragraph delves into the interpretation of 'other authorities' and how the judiciary has expanded its definition over time. It mentions key court cases like University of Madras vs. Santai and Ambai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which have contributed to the evolving understanding of what constitutes an authority under Article 12. The paragraph concludes by outlining tests to determine if an entity is an instrumentality of the state, such as government control, financial dependence, and the performance of public functions.

05:00

📚 Article 13: Judicial Review and the Scope of Fundamental Rights

This section focuses on Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which outlines the scope for judicial review of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights. It explains that Article 13(1) declares all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights to be void, and discusses the doctrine of eclipse that allows such laws to continue providing relief for rights accrued during their application period. The paragraph also addresses the challenge of determining the validity of post-constitutional laws under Article 13(2), introducing the doctrine of severability. This doctrine, explained through the case of RMDC vs. Union of India, provides guidelines for determining whether an inconsistent part of a law can be separated from the consistent part. The paragraph concludes by discussing the inclusion of various forms of directives and notifications under the term 'law' in Article 13(3), and touches upon the doctrine of basic structure in relation to constitutional amendments.

10:03

🏛️ The Doctrine of Basic Structure in Constitutional Law

The paragraph explores the doctrine of basic structure, which is central to understanding the limitations on the legislative power to amend the Constitution. It discusses the historical background of this doctrine, starting with the case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India, where the court first considered the scope of constitutional amendments. The paragraph details how subsequent cases, including Golaknath vs. State of Punjab and Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, shaped the doctrine. It explains that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure, which includes principles like the supremacy of the Constitution, democratic governance, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, and the mandate to build a welfare state. The paragraph also mentions how the 42nd Amendment Act attempted to limit judicial review but was eventually struck down in the Minerva Mills vs. Union of India case, reaffirming the judiciary's role in upholding the basic structure of the Constitution.

15:06

📜 Conclusion: The Impact of Basic Structure Doctrine

The final paragraph summarizes the significance of the basic structure doctrine in Indian constitutional law. It highlights how the doctrine has shaped the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary, ensuring that fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution are protected from arbitrary amendments. The paragraph also reflects on the historical importance of cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills, which have reinforced the doctrine's role in maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution. The speaker concludes by expressing hope that the video has provided valuable insights into the basic structure doctrine and its implications for constitutional law in India.

Keywords

💡State

In the context of the video script, 'State' refers to the collective institutions that exercise political authority and control over a defined territory. It includes the government and Parliament of India, the government and legislature of each state, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India. The script discusses how the term 'State' is interpreted under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which is crucial for understanding the scope of entities bound to protect fundamental rights.

💡Fundamental Rights

Fundamental Rights are the basic rights and freedoms granted to individuals by the Constitution of India. These rights are designed to protect the dignity, liberty, and autonomy of individuals and are justiciable, meaning they can be enforced through courts. The script emphasizes the importance of these rights and how the State must not transgress them.

💡Article 12

Article 12 of the Constitution of India defines what constitutes the 'State' for the purposes of fundamental rights. The script explains how the interpretation of this article has evolved over time, particularly in relation to the term 'other authorities,' which has been expanded to include bodies beyond the government and legislature.

💡Instrumentality of the State

The term 'Instrumentality of the State' refers to bodies or authorities that are controlled or significantly influenced by the State, even if they are not strictly part of the government structure. The script discusses how the courts have developed tests to determine whether an entity is an instrumentality of the State, thus falling under Article 12.

💡Judicial Review

Judicial Review is the power of courts to review and determine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. The script mentions Article 13 of the Constitution of India, which provides the basis for judicial review to ensure that laws do not infringe upon fundamental rights.

💡Pre-constitutional Laws

Pre-constitutional Laws are laws that existed before the adoption of the Constitution of India. The script discusses how such laws are void if they are inconsistent with fundamental rights, introducing the concept of the 'doctrine of eclipse' which allows these laws to continue providing relief for rights accrued during their period of application.

💡Doctrine of Severability

The Doctrine of Severability is a legal principle discussed in the script that allows a court to determine whether a part of a law that is unconstitutional can be separated from the rest of the law, which may be constitutional. This doctrine is crucial for maintaining the validity of laws while striking down unconstitutional provisions.

💡Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a principle of constitutional law in India that asserts there are certain fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be amended, even by a constitutional amendment. The script outlines how this doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court of India to protect the core principles of the Constitution.

💡Directive Principles of State Policy

Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the State to promote social, economic, and political justice. They are mentioned in the script as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, emphasizing the State's role in building a welfare state.

💡Republican and Democratic Form of Government

The script refers to the Republican and Democratic form of government as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This concept ensures that the government is elected by and responsible to the people, which is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution that cannot be amended away.

💡Separation of Powers

Separation of Powers is a key principle of the Constitution of India, as mentioned in the script, which divides authority among the legislature, executive, and judiciary to prevent concentration of power and protect individual liberties. This principle is part of the basic structure that cannot be amended.

Highlights

Definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India includes the government and Parliament of India, and the government and legislature of each state.

Fundamental rights are boundaries that the state cannot transgress under any circumstances.

The term 'other authorities' is significant for expanding the scope of 'State' under Article 12.

The Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of 'State' by interpreting 'other authorities'.

In University of Madras vs Santai, the term 'other authorities' was initially interpreted to mean institutions with rule-making power.

The interpretation of 'other authorities' was later broadened to include statutory bodies.

In the case of S. Prashant vs Union of India, a company was first considered an authority within the meaning of Article 12.

The 'brooding presence of the state' behind an organization's operations is a key determinant of it being an authority.

The court established tests to determine if an authority is an instrumentality of the state in Arieti vs International Airport Authority of India.

The rigidity of the tests laid down in Ajasia was revisited in Pradeep Kumar Visvas to allow for a more flexible interpretation.

Financial, functional, and administrative dominance of the government is a key factor in determining an instrumentality of the state.

Article 13 of the Constitution of India provides the scope for judicial review of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.

All pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void according to Clause 1 of Article 13.

The doctrine of eclipse was established in Bikaji vs State of Madhya Pradesh, allowing inconsistent laws to provide relief for accrued rights.

Post-constitutional laws are void ab initio if they are inconsistent with fundamental rights, as per Clause 2 of Article 13.

The doctrine of severability was introduced in R.M.D.C. vs Union of India to determine the separability of valid and invalid parts of a law.

The term 'law' in Article 13 includes ordinances, orders, bylaws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs, and usages.

The doctrine of basic structure was introduced in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala to protect the Constitution's fundamental features from legislative overreach.

The basic structure of the Constitution includes supremacy of the Constitution, democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, and mandate to build a welfare state.

The 42nd Amendment Act attempted to limit judicial review, but was invalidated in Minerva Mills vs Union of India, affirming judicial review as part of the basic structure.

Transcripts

[Music]

Hello friends I'm sugan Saka and today

we are going to have an overview of the

meaning of the term State as used under

article 12 of The Constitution of India

as you know the fundamental rights and

shined under the constitution of India

are based out of human rights which in

turn are embodiments of universal

natural rights it is imperative on state

not to transgress these rights it may

also be understood that fundament Al

rights are the boundary which the state

shall under no circumstance Beyond

constitutional permissibility transgress

as that shall frustrate the very purpose

and objective of fundamental rights in

lie of this it is very important to

understand what a state shall mean so as

to protect those entitled with certain

fundamental rights under the part three

of the

Constitution according to article 12 of

The Constitution unless the context

otherwise requires the state shall

include the government and Parliament of

India and the government and legislature

of each of the state and all local or

other authorities within the territory

of India or under the control of the

government of India as far as the first

two components of the definition are

concerned there is little to no scope of

any ambiguity in them but the vital

question has been what it must mean by

the term other authorities this term is

of immense significance as it is here

where widening of the scope of this

definition is possible The Wider the

meaning the more authorities can be

brought within the AIT of article 12

hence expanding the protection of the

fundamental rights therefore the epics

court has judiciously expanded the

meaning of the term state by its

interpretation of the term other

authorities this may be witnessed by the

gradual widening of the scope of the

term other authorities in a phased

manner as shall be explained now at

first the question was dealt with in the

case of University of Madras versus

santai in 1954 where the rule of udm

generus was applied to the term the rule

of ausm generus essentially means of the

same kind this implies that the term

other authorities must be ascribed a

meaning similar to Parliament and

legislature that is institutions or

bodies wested with rule making however

it was later on rejected in the case of

ambai versus state of utar Pradesh in

the year 1962 this was followed by a

phase where Judiciary interpreted the

term so as to include only statutary

bodies within its embit this phase may

be noted from Rajasthan State

electricity board versus mohanlal

followed by sukdev sing versus batram

eventually to retti versus International

Airport Authority of India while in all

these cases the bodies in question were

statutary the significance of sukdev

Singh case lies in the fact that the

court referred to instrumentalities of

government as a principal further in

retti case though again the body in

question was a statutory one nonetheless

the court laid down certain tests to

determine whether an authority would be

an instrumentality of the state or not

however none of these cases could be

seen as precedent Beyond statutary

bodies being authorities within the

meaning of article

12 therefore a remarkable contribution

in the jurisprudence of the term other

authorities was made in s prash versus

Union of India where for the first time

a company was considered an authority

within the meaning of article 12 the

court noted the determinant Factor as

the brooding presence of the state

behind the operations of the body

statutary or other this paved way for

inclusion of non- statutary bodies also

under article 12 later on in aasia case

the court reiterated the tests laid down

in arietti to determine an

instrumentality of the state to

summarize the gist of these tests

following may be noted first where the

entire share capital of the body is held

by the government the body is an

instrumentality of the government second

where the financial assistance given by

the state is so large that the entire

expenses are met by such finances the

body may be said to be impregnated with

government character next if the body

enjoys Monopoly status conferred by or

protected by the state next if there

exists a deep and pervasive State

control the body is an instrumentality

of the state next if the functions

performed by the body are public

functions and closely related to those

performed by the government this could

be a relevant factor to consider the

body as an instrumentality of the

government since the rigidity of these

tests laid down in ajasia was a crucial

question to be examined the court

further clarified the same in pradep

Kumar visvas so as to remove the element

of rigidity from the same and laying

down a general proposition the quote

highlighted

Financial functional and administrative

dominance of the government to be the

determinant factor for the

identification of a body as an

instrumentality or agency of the

state as a consequence to these

developments the courts over a period of

time have declared many authorities as

agencies or instrumentalities of the

state for the purpose of article 12 now

that we've had an overview of the

meaning of the term State we shall now

proceed to Article 13 of the

Constitution of India

Article 13 is a key provision laying

down the scope for judicial review for

laws in derogation of fundamental Rights

Article 13 is a significant provision

for if not Article 13 the epics Court

could not be deemed as the guardian of

the Constitution wested with power to

interpret the statutes and test their

validity on the threshold of fundamental

rights Clause 1 to Article 13 declares

that all pre-constitutional laws shall

be void to the extent they are

inconsistent with the fundamental rights

this Clause has given rise to a

pertinent question with respect to its

effect on the given law whether such a

law is rendered dead in its entirety or

can it be revitalized in any given

situation if so how the answer to this

question was provided in the famous case

of bikaji versus state of madh Pradesh

where a pre-constitutional law an

amendment in 1947 to the CP and barar

Motor Vehicles Act of 1939

was challenged as it authorized the

state government to exclude all private

motor transport business this exception

was found inconsistent with article 191g

when the Constitution came into force in

the year 1950 as the fundamental rights

contained in the set provision allowed

freedom of occupation trade and business

the court then propounded the doctrine

of eclipse anaging that uh the

inconsistent law is not to be considered

as completely wiped out for it shall

continue to provide relief on rights

accured within its period of application

however it was for inconsistencies

arising post the commencement of the

Constitution that the laws shall be in

dant condition and if the relevant

fundamental right is amended its effect

will be to remove the Shadow and make it

free from all blemish or infirmity it

must be noted that this Doctrine is to

only apply to pre-constitutional laws as

for the postc constitutional laws they

shall be void AB initio in case of

inconsistency with fundamental

rights moving further to Clause 2 to

Article 13 it must be noted that the

provision applies to post Constitution

laws as already mentioned

post-constitutional laws do not face the

challenge similar to the one faced in

the laws falling under Clause one as

these laws are being enacted after the

Constitution has already come into Force

hence it is imperative on the

legislature not to transgress the con

constitutional boundaries however in

case the laws or any part thereof tends

to do so Clause two provides that to the

extent of such inconsistency such law

shall be void here the term void implies

void Abino and therefore it is not to be

confused with one which is in dormant or

eclipsed condition when the legislature

enacts a law inconsistent with part

three of the Constitution such law is

certainly void but will the law be void

even if only a part of it is

inconsistent it is very important to

note here in this context that Clause

two suggests that the laws is to be

rendered void only to the extent of such

inconsistency hence there shall be two

pertinent questions involved here in

which shall be first whether the

inconsistent part is separable from the

consistent part or not and second how to

deter mind whether a part is separable

or not these questions have been

answered by The Honorable Supreme Court

in the famous case of rmdc versus Union

of India in

1957 by propounding what came to be

known as the doctrine of severability

the Court laid down certain propositions

with regard to the doctrine which also

explains how Clause 2 to Article 13 is

supposed to apply the propositions are

as follows first the intent of the

legislature is a vital aspect in

determining whether valid part of a

statute is separable from the invalid

part the intention may be deduced on

reading the objects and purposes of the

legislation second where the valid and

invalid part of the statute are

inseparable it will render the entire

statute as invalid third in case the

valid and invalid part are separable it

shall also be seen whether what remains

after removing the invalid part can

stand and be enforced independently of

the removed part

fourth if what remains after removing

the invalid part is so truncated and

incapable of being enforced the entire

statute shall be rendered invalid fifth

if the valid and invalid part even

though separable form part of the same

scheme so that the valid part shall have

no meaning after removing the invalid

part the whole of the law shall be

rendered invalid as explained so far

through both Clause 1 and two the

constitution of India has imposed

limitations upon the legislative power

to surpass the constitutionally

guaranteed rights it must be reiterated

while Clause one would apply to

pre-constitutional laws Clause two is

exclusively for post-constitutional

laws further Clause 3 to Article 13

defines what the term law shall include

amongst which an ordinance order bylaw

rule regulation notification customs and

usages all have been included an

interesting observation could be The

Silence of the provision on legislative

enactments as laws however it must be

noted that it is only due to the

obviousness of the fact that acts of

legislature are laws hence no exclusive

mention relevant to this definition and

also to Clause 4 to Article 13 is the

next topic on the doctrine of basic

structure to which now we shall proceed

the doctrine of basic structure is

closely linked to the two questions

which are first whether the amendment to

the Constitution under article 368 laws

within the meaning of Article 13 Clause

3 second if not can the parliament

through its power to amend under article

368 take away or abridge the fundamental

rights guaranteed under part three to

any extent in order to proceed with the

answer to the uh stated questions

through the doctrine of basic structure

it is pertinent to delve into the

background of these questions and

thereby of the doctrine itself the

question was first raised before the

Apex Court in the case of shankari

Prasad Singh Deo versus Union of India

in 1951 when the first amendment Act of

1951 was challenged before the court the

amendment curtailed the right to

property which then was enshrined as a

fundamental right it was argued that

since Article 13 prohibited enacting

laws which take away or abdes any

fundamental right under part three this

amendment should be declared void this

argument was rejected by the epics Court

which was of the opinion that

Constitutional Amendment acts are not

laws within the meaning of Article 13

followed by this was the next case of

sajan Singh versus state of Rajasthan in

1965 when the Constitution's 17th

Amendment Act was challenged a

constitutional bench of five judges

through a majority of 3 is2 upheld the

earlier shankri Prasad Singh's decision

the dissenting minority Judgment of

Justice hiah and Justice molar were of a

differing opinion which was inclined

towards the sanctity of fundamental

rights and not to make them vulnerable

to the mercy of legislative

majority therefore not much later than

the last mentioned decision came yet

another significant decision by the 11

judge bench of the apic court in the

famous case of IC gulak versus state of

Punjab in

1967 here specifically the Punjab

security and land tenure Act of 1953 and

consequentially ially the 17th Amendment

Act was once again a subject matter of

scrutiny the bench by a majority of 6 is

to5 overruled its earlier decisions in

sankari Prasad and sajan Singh cases the

Court held that article 368 contained

only the procedure to amend and not the

power thereof which were otherwise laid

down in article 248 it said that all

legislative powers are subject to

provisions of the Constitution

constitutional amendments are to be

considered as laws within the meaning of

Article 13 hence subject to the

limitations under Clause 2 and judicial

review

resultantly no amendment to the

Constitution can take away a fundamental

right guaranteed under part three since

the 17th Amendment Act was declared

invalid by implication the amendment Act

was to be rendered void app initial this

could have resulted in invalidating a

large number of transactions already

undertaken and consequentially a flood

of litigation

therefore to avoid the chaos the court

also came up with a doctrine of

prospective overruling this implied that

the golak decision was not to overturn

earlier acts but only to restrict the

future acts of aaging fundamental rights

since the decision of the golak case was

also not devoid of its own flaws and in

the tussel between legislature and

Judiciary it was only seen as yet

another extreme contrast to the earlier

decisions the then Government tried to

legislatively overrule the golak

decision by introducing 24th 25th 26th

and 29th Amendment acts

subsequently as the union Parliament had

mostly undone the effects of golak

decision it again called for judicial

intervention in the landmark case of

keshwanand bti versus state of Kerala in

1973 this was a 13 judge bench and the

largest till date ever to be constituted

by the Supreme Court it was in this

decision that the apic court propounded

the doctrine of basic structure as the

key findings of the decision the

following may be noted first the golak

decision was overruled second the 24th

Amendment Act was held valid third the

25th Amendment act in so far as it took

away judicial review was declared

invalid fourth the 29th Amendment Act

was also found valid and last but the

most important finding was that article

368 contained procedure as well as the

power to amend the Constitution however

it does not enable Parliament to alter

the basic structure of the Constitution

the significance of the decision lies in

the fact that not just it struck a

balance between the ongoing tussle

between the legislature and the

Judiciary it reaffirmed constitutional

Supremacy without diluting the

legitimate powers of the parliament

which are again based out of the very

same Constitution hence the quanan bti

decision while it does not give

unfettered power to Parliament to amend

the fundamental rights it also did not

take away the power to amend which is

otherwise a prerogative of the

legislature and legislature alone while

the fundamental rights could be amended

those which are embodiments of the basic

structure of the Constitution shall not

be amended or amended to destroy the

basic structure the another significance

of this decision is that it recognizes

that there are other Provisions also

Beyond fundamental rights which need to

be protected from the legislative access

hence this decision can also be seen as

laying the foundation to emite

constitutionalism within the domain of

the Constitutional law of India which in

itself is a historical and a mstone

achievement by Indian

Judiciary what constitutes the basic

structure of the Constitution is the

important question the answer to which

is not exhaustive however to name a few

as laid down by the a quote in the

quesan and bti case as well as rated and

expanded in subsequent decisions are to

include the following first supremacy of

the Constitution Second Republican and

Democratic form of government third

secular character of The Constitution

fourth separation of powers between

legislature executive and the Judiciary

fifth Federal character of The

Constitution sixth the mandate to build

a welfare state contained in the

directive principles of State policy the

unity and integrity of the nation

sovereignity of India parliamentary

democracy and the three organs of the

state though the kand bti decision was

of rank creativity and significance as

already stated earlier ironically the

tussle was not to end as smoothly as

perceived a little later to the kesan

bharti decision in 1975 when the

election of shrimati Indra Gandhi was

challenged in the famous election

Petition of Indra Neu Gandhi versus Raj

Naran which is also known as the

election case the then government

introduced the 39th Amendment act

hastily a day before the hearing of the

matter before The Supreme

Court the Supreme Court declared the

imputed clause for as invalid invoking

the basic structure Doctrine by

declaring free and fair elections as

part of the basic structure feeling AG

grieved by the twin decision in the

quanan bharti and the election case the

then Parliament yet again introduced the

42nd Amendment act

1976 with this amendment almost a

revision of the Constitution was made

and most importantly Clause four and

five were added to article 368 in order

to legislatively overrule the earlier

decisions and to categorically bring

every Amendment under article 368

outside the scope of judicial review

this is when the last and decisive

battle on this question was fought in

the landmark case of of minurva Mills

versus Union of India in 1980 when the

Apex Court invalidated the newly added

Clause 4 and 5 to article 368 and the

amendment to article 31 C by the 42nd

Amendment act by declaring judicial

review as part of the basic structure of

the

Constitution with this we come to an end

to our discussion on the basic structure

Doctrine I hope the video was

informative and helpful thank

[Music]

you