GS 2: Basic Structure

Introduction:

• The ongoing discourse in India revolves around whether a sovereign nation has the autonomy to shape its trajectory without being constrained by external “universal” values.
• This debate, rekindled by Ranjan Gogoi’s assertion that the “Basic Structure Doctrine” lacks a strong jurisprudential foundation, is reminiscent of the 1951 deliberations on the First Amendment.
• These discussions touch upon India’s political and constitutional landscape.

Resuscitation of the Debate:

• Ranjan Gogoi’s assertion regarding the “Basic Structure Doctrine” has reignited the conversation about whether this doctrine is grounded in legal principles.
• Critics label Gogoi’s statement as “partisan,” yet stifling such discourse obstructs conversations about the Constitution’s functionality.

Issue: Competence of Union Executive:

• At the heart of this debate lies the competence of the Union executive to limit the powers of the Delhi Government over services.
• This raises concerns about the federal balance, a key facet of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• The contentious bill’s passage, despite constitutional misgivings, highlights the compromised legitimacy due to potential constitutional impropriety.

Broader Significance and Relevance:

• This holds significance in India’s current political landscape and anticipates the Basic Structure Doctrine’s prominence in discussions on Article 370’s abrogation and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019.
• The core questions arising from this are the practical significance of specific fundamental rights, their modifiability, and the ultimate authority for their enforcement.

Historical Context: First Amendment and Constitutional Principles:

• Drawing parallels with 1951, the dialogue recalls the debate over the First Amendment aiming to restrict the freedom of expression.
• Article 21 of the Constitution, favoring “procedure established by law” over “due process,” aimed to synchronize state and society through incremental constitutional amendments.
• This contends that leveraging the Basic Structure Doctrine for political gain impedes certain legislative measures.

Evolution and Consequences of the Doctrine:

• The roots of the Basic Structure Doctrine trace back to the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which established that Parliament couldn’t amend the Constitution’s fundamental structure.
• Yet, the specific definition of these core features remains adaptable and subject to case-specific interpretation, consequently curbing executive powers.
• This paradox limits the feasibility of grand electoral mandates by circumscribing executive authority and nurturing a culture of “cheap talk.”

Impact on Legislative Dynamics:

• The dialogue critiques how the Basic Structure Doctrine places “procedure established by law” beneath “due process,” influencing the legislative course.
• By sanctifying it, the doctrine withdraws from political realms.
• The article highlights Jawaharlal Nehru’s move to restrain freedom of expression via the First Amendment as a bold response to evolving constitutional requirements.

Balancing Power in Indian Democracy:

• This accentuates the equilibrium between an alert judiciary and an empowered legislature in Indian politics, both grounded in the principle of separation of powers.
• These mechanisms cultivate resilience and adaptability within democracy.
• Hindering this adaptability, the article cautions, could undermine the state’s capacity to manage societal pressures.

Necessity of Debate and Democratic Discourse:

• The narrative calls for a more open debate and rational political discourse in India.
• Suppressing differing views, it argues, undermines justice and democratic stability.
• Quoting Jawaharlal Nehru, it asserts that a nation’s stifled essence seeks expression through its parliamentary voice.
• The autonomous functioning of Parliament remains pivotal for Indian democracy.

Conclusion:

The discourse concludes by likening the Basic Structure Doctrine to a “Pole Star” of Indian politics.

It advises leveraging this doctrine’s guidance without fixating on it, similar to a skilled navigator using the Pole Star amidst tumultuous waters.

Failing to do so could lead to a metaphorical storm’s turmoil, underscoring the importance of a balanced political engagement and unfettered dialogue.

Discuss the resurgence of the debate surrounding the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ in the context of Indian democracy. Analyze its implications on the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary, its historical foundations, and the broader significance it holds for constitutional interpretation and democratic discourse in India.