| dbo:abstract
|
- The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution. In Kesavananda, Justice Hans Raj Khanna propounded that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament of India. Key among these "basic features", as expounded by Justice Khanna, are the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals by the constitution. The doctrine thus forms the basis of the power of the Supreme Court of India to review and strike down constitutional amendments and acts enacted by the Parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this "basic structure" of the Constitution. The basic features of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic" feature is determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional amendments had been that any part of the Constitution was amendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in Golaknath v. State of Punjab. It held that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a "transcendental position" and are beyond the reach of Parliament. It also declared any amendment that "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III as unconstitutional. In 1973, the basic structure doctrine was formally introduced with rigorous legal reasoning in Justice Hans Raj Khanna's decisive judgment in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Previously, the Supreme Court had held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was unfettered. However, in this landmark ruling, the Court adjudicated that while Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution. Although Kesavananda was decided by a narrow margin of 7–6, the basic structure doctrine, as propounded in Justice Khanna's judgement, has since gained widespread legal and scholarly acceptance due to a number of subsequent cases and judgments relying heavily upon it to strike down Parliamentary amendments that were held to be violative of the basic structure and therefore unconstitutional. Primary among these was the imposition of a state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975, and her subsequent attempt to suppress her prosecution through the 39th Amendment. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived as unprecedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amendment by the Indian National Congress' majority in central and state legislatures, proved that in fact such apprehension was well-grounded. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment and parts of the 42nd Amendment respectively, and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy. The Supreme Court's position on constitutional amendments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its "basic structure". The basic structure doctrine was rejected by the High Court of Singapore. It was initially also rejected by the Federal Court of Malaysia, but was later accepted by it. Conversely, the doctrine was initially approved in Belize by the Supreme Court. (en)
- La doctrine de la structure fondamentale (en anglais : basic structure doctrine) est une théorie juridique de common law selon laquelle la constitution d'un État souverain présente certaines caractéristiques qui ne peuvent être effacées par son législateur. Cette théorie est reconnue en Inde, au Bangladesh, en Malaisie, au Pakistan et en Ouganda. Elle a été développée par la Cour suprême de l'Inde dans une série d'affaires de droit constitutionnel dans les années 1960 et 1970 qui ont culminé dans l'affaire (en), où la théorie a été formellement adoptée. Le Bangladesh est peut-être le seul système juridique au monde qui reconnaît cette doctrine de manière exprimée, écrite et rigide par l'article 7B de sa Constitution. La Constitution habilite le Parlement et les législatures ou assemblées des États à légiférer dans leurs juridictions respectives. Toutefois, un projet de loi visant à modifier la Constitution peut être présenté au Parlement lui-même, mais cela ne constitue pas un pouvoir absolu. Si la Cour suprême (ou la cour constitutionnelle) estime que la constitution d’une loi adoptée par le Parlement ne correspond pas aux caractéristiques fondamentales, elle a le pouvoir de la déclarer invalide. Dans l'affaire Kesavananda, le juge Hans Raj Khanna a affirmé que la Constitution de l'Inde possède certaines caractéristiques fondamentales qui ne peuvent être modifiées ou détruites par des amendements du Parlement indien. Parmi ces "caractéristiques fondamentales", comme l'a expliqué le juge Khanna, figurent les droits fondamentaux garantis aux individus par la Constitution. Cette doctrine constitue donc la base du pouvoir de la Cour suprême de l'Inde de contrôler et d'annuler les amendements constitutionnels et les lois promulguées par le Parlement qui entrent en conflit avec cette "structure de base" de la Constitution ou cherchent à la modifier. Les caractéristiques fondamentales de la Constitution n'ont pas été explicitement définies par le pouvoir judiciaire, et la revendication d'une caractéristique particulière de la Constitution comme étant une caractéristique "fondamentale" est déterminée par la Cour dans chaque cas qui lui est soumis. (fr)
|
| dbp:quote
|
- "Perhaps the position of the Supreme Court is influenced by the fact that it has not so far been confronted with any extreme type of constitutional amendments. It is the duty of the jurist, though, to anticipate extreme cases of conflict, and sometimes only extreme tests reveal the true nature of a legal concept. So, if for the purpose of legal discussion, I may propose some fictive amendment laws to you, could it still be considered a valid exercise of the amendment power conferred by Article 368 if a two-thirds majority changed Article 1 by dividing India into two States of Tamilnad and Hindustan proper?
"Could a constitutional amendment abolish Article 21, to the effect that forthwith a person could be deprived of his life or personal liberty without authorisation by law? Could the ruling party, if it sees its majority shrinking, amend Article 368 to the effect that the amending power rests with the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister? Could the amending power be used to abolish the Constitution and reintroduce, let us say, the rule of a moghul emperor or of the Crown of England? I do not want, by posing such questions, to provoke easy answers. But I should like to acquaint you with the discussion which took place on such questions among constitutional lawyers in Germany in the Weimar period - discussion, seeming academic at first, but suddenly illustrated by history in a drastic and terrible manner." (en)
- Any amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority. (en)
|
| rdfs:comment
|
- The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution. (en)
- La doctrine de la structure fondamentale (en anglais : basic structure doctrine) est une théorie juridique de common law selon laquelle la constitution d'un État souverain présente certaines caractéristiques qui ne peuvent être effacées par son législateur. Cette théorie est reconnue en Inde, au Bangladesh, en Malaisie, au Pakistan et en Ouganda. Elle a été développée par la Cour suprême de l'Inde dans une série d'affaires de droit constitutionnel dans les années 1960 et 1970 qui ont culminé dans l'affaire (en), où la théorie a été formellement adoptée. Le Bangladesh est peut-être le seul système juridique au monde qui reconnaît cette doctrine de manière exprimée, écrite et rigide par l'article 7B de sa Constitution. (fr)
|
