Judicial review and the basic structure: courts as a check

Parliament can amend the Constitution, but can it change anything at all? The Supreme Court's answer, developed over decades, is no — not if the change destroys the Constitution's core identity. That answer is called the basic structure doctrine, and it is one of the most important, and most debated, ideas in Indian constitutional law.

Judicial review is the broader power behind it: courts can examine laws, executive actions, and constitutional amendments for consistency with the Constitution, and strike down what violates it. Articles 13, 32, and 226 provide key parts of that framework. Article 13 says laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency. Article 32 allows direct access to the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights, and Article 226 gives High Courts wider writ powers.

The turning point was Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, decided on 24 April 1973 by a 13-judge bench, by a narrow 7:6 majority. The Court held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 was wide, but it could not alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment did not give a single closed list of basic features. In later cases, courts have treated features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, and judicial review itself as part of that structure. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court reaffirmed judicial review as a basic feature and struck down clauses that sought to give Parliament unlimited amending power.

Supporters argue that without this limit, a temporary parliamentary majority could rewrite democratic safeguards out of existence. Critics argue that the doctrine is vague, that judges rather than elected representatives end up defining the Constitution's unchangeable core, and that it sits uneasily with parliamentary sovereignty. Both sides agree on one practical point: the doctrine is rarely used to strike down amendments, but its existence shapes how amendments are drafted and debated.