Elements of the basic structure

Also called: Basic features · Topic: Amendment of the Constitution and the Basic Structure · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 9 "Constitution as a Living Document"

Meaning

The elements of the basic structure, also called basic features, are the core features of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has named them one case at a time. Parliament can amend these features under Art. 368, but it cannot destroy them or damage what they are at their core. Examples include supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review and a limited amending power.

They matter because they set the outer limit on Parliament's amending power. Courts test amendments against them, including laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973.

Explanation

How the list is built

• No complete list. The Supreme Court has never given a full list of basic features. Judges decide case by case what counts (NCERT, Class 11, Ch 9).
• The starting point: Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973) created the doctrine. It named the first set of features.
• How the list grows: each later case adds features or confirms old ones when an amendment or a protected law is challenged.
• "Unamendable" is too strong a word. Parliament can still change a basic feature. What it cannot do is destroy the feature's core.

The elements, case by case

Case (year)	Elements held to be basic structure
Kesavananda Bharati (1973)	Supremacy of the Constitution; republican and democratic form; secular and federal character; separation of powers; unity and integrity; sovereignty; welfare state
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)	Free and fair elections; rule of law; judicial review
Minerva Mills (1980)	Limited amending power; harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles; judicial review
Sampath Kumar (1987) / L. Chandra Kumar (1997)	Judicial review, including review by High Courts (Arts. 226/227) and by the Supreme Court (Art. 32)
Kihoto Hollohan (1992)	Free and fair elections; democracy
S.R. Bommai (1994)	Secularism; federalism; democracy
I.R. Coelho (2007)	The essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 [3]
NJAC case, SC Advocates-on-Record Association (2015)	Independence of the judiciary

Some key elements in simple words

• Judicial review: the courts' power to strike down laws and government actions that break the Constitution. The Court has called it basic again and again. No other feature has been confirmed as often.
• Limited amending power: Parliament's power to amend has limits. Parliament cannot use that power to remove the limits.
• Harmony of Parts III and IV: Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) must stay in balance. Neither may wipe out the other.
• Essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21: equality, the basic freedoms, and the right to life and personal liberty. These "stand on altogether a different footing" [3].
• Federalism: power is shared between the Union and the states.
• Secularism: the state treats all religions equally.

Limits: what has been held NOT basic

• Right to property: held not basic in Kesavananda.
• The 50% cap on reservations as a rigid rule: held not basic in Janhit Abhiyan (2022). That case upheld the 103rd Amendment (EWS quota).

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: the words "basic structure" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The idea comes from the Supreme Court's reading of Art. 368, the article that gives Parliament the power to amend.
• Who uses it: the Supreme Court and the High Courts. They test constitutional amendments, and post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws, against these elements.
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) and Minerva Mills (1980):
• Art. 368(4) said no court could question an amendment. Art. 368(5) said Parliament's amending power had "no limitation whatever". Both were struck down [3].
• The extended Art. 31C let all Directive Principles override Arts. 14 and 19. It was struck down because it broke the balance between Part III and Part IV.

• The bench was led by CJI Y.V. Chandrachud. Justice P.N. Bhagwati partly dissented: he would have upheld the extended Art. 31C.

• Waman Rao (1981):

• The Court fixed 24 April 1973 as the cut-off date.
• Ninth Schedule entries made on or after that date can be tested against the basic structure [3].

• The original Art. 31C, which covered only Art. 39(b) and (c), was upheld.

• Kihoto Hollohan (1992):

• The Tenth Schedule (the anti-defection law, added by the 52nd Amendment, 1985) was upheld.

• Only para 7, which shut out the courts, was struck down [3].

• S.R. Bommai (1994):

• A 9-judge bench held that secularism, federalism and democracy are basic [3].

• So courts can review President's rule (when the Union government takes over the running of a state for a time, under Art. 356).

• L. Chandra Kumar (1997):

• High Court review under Arts. 226/227 and Supreme Court review under Art. 32 are part of the "inviolable basic structure" [3].

• So Art. 323A(2)(d) and Art. 323B(3)(d) were struck down. Tribunals still work, but their decisions can be challenged in a High Court.

• I.R. Coelho (11 January 2007):

• A 9-judge bench, with CJI Y.K. Sabharwal writing the judgment, held that Art. 31B gives no blanket immunity after 24 April 1973 [2].
• Courts look at a law's real effect on rights (the rights test) [2].

• The Ninth Schedule now has 284 entries [4].

• NJAC case (2015): the 99th Amendment (2014) was struck down because it damaged the independence of the judiciary.

Don't confuse with

• Basic structure doctrine vs. elements of the basic structure: the doctrine is the rule that Parliament cannot destroy core features (Kesavananda, 1973). The elements are the specific features named under that rule, case by case.
• Fundamental Rights (Part III): Fundamental Rights as a whole are not basic structure. The right to property is not basic. Only the essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 was held basic in I.R. Coelho [3].
• The Preamble: many basic features (sovereignty, democracy, a secular republic) echo the Preamble's words. But the Preamble is not the list. Features like judicial review and a limited amending power come from court judgments.
• Amending a feature vs. destroying it: Parliament may change how a feature works. For example, Kihoto upheld the Tenth Schedule. A change is struck down only when it destroys the core of the feature.

Prelims Hooks

• Minerva Mills (1980) added limited amending power and harmony of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles to the list. It struck down Art. 368(4) and (5), both added by the 42nd Amendment (1976) [3].
• S.R. Bommai (1994), a 9-judge bench, held secularism, federalism and democracy to be basic [3].
• I.R. Coelho (11 January 2007) held the essence of Arts. 14, 19 and 21 to be basic [3]. Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973 can be tested [2].
• Independence of the judiciary: held basic in the NJAC case (2015), which struck down the 99th Amendment (2014).
• Trap: "Which is NOT a basic feature?" The right to property (Kesavananda) and the 50% reservation cap as a rigid rule (Janhit Abhiyan, 2022).
• Trap: the Constitution does not list the basic features. The Supreme Court has never given a complete list.

Mains Points

• Who decides what is "basic"?
• Unelected judges, not Parliament, decide what counts. The list has grown from Kesavananda (1973) to NJAC (2015).
• Supporters say this protects core values from a passing majority. The 42nd Amendment's attempt to shut out the courts shows why this check is needed.

• Critics call it judicial supremacy, and they say no one can predict which feature will be added next. A balanced answer calls for case-by-case reasoning and judicial restraint.

• Rights and directives as "two wheels of a chariot":

• Minerva Mills made the balance between Part III and Part IV itself a basic feature.
• Social-justice laws, such as land reform under Art. 39(b) and (c), can limit rights. They cannot wipe rights out.

• This point is useful for GS-II answers on the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

• Judicial review as the guardian of the other features:

• Judicial review is the element the Court has confirmed most often (Raj Narain, Minerva Mills, Sampath Kumar, Bommai, L. Chandra Kumar).
• Without judicial review, no other basic feature could be enforced. Hence tribunals must stay open to challenge before the High Courts.
• After Coelho, the Ninth Schedule is no longer a "safe box" for laws.

Related concepts

• Minerva Mills case
• Waman Rao case
• I.R. Coelho case

Read more

• Consolidating the doctrine: Minerva Mills to I.R. Coelho