Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi called for a review of the Constitution’s Basic Structure Doctrine, describing it as “vague, ambiguous and ever-growing.” He remarked that Parliament itself does not clearly know what constitutes the doctrine’s scope.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi has described the “Constitution’s basic structure doctrine as vague, ambiguous and ever-growing” and has called for its review.
During an event ,He stated,
“Parliament does not know as to what constitutes basic structure… Now, this vague, ambiguous and ever-growing doctrine is part of the Constitution by way of an interpretation,”
The doctrine was established by the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling, which determined that while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its fundamental features.
Earlier, On April 24, 1973, a 13-judge bench, in a narrow 7:6 majority, limited Parliament’s powers to amend every aspect of the Constitution and granted the judiciary the authority to review any amendments.
Dwivedi’s comments have reignited the debate over the doctrine, which has faced criticism from various quarters, including former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar.
He noted that the doctrine was initially imposed on Germany by the victorious powers, led by the US, after World War II.
While addressing the topic “Basic Structure of the Constitution” at the Pradhan Mantri Sangrahalaya in the capital, he asserted,
“The time has come to review the Kesavananda Bharati judgement,”
He argued that the constituent assembly, which included eminent figures like Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, was unaware of this doctrine and deliberately granted the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
He stated,
“The issue is not that someone is planning to amend the Constitution… The question is whether this doctrine has ever been tested. This has never been tested and only followed,”
Dwivedi emphasized that independence was achieved by the people of India and that the authority to amend should reside with citizens. He questioned the rationale behind the inclusion of Article 368 by the framers of the Constitution.
He explained that the Constitution established a stringent process for amendments, requiring any bill to be approved by a two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and later ratified by at least half of the states.
He criticized the doctrine for not providing a clear definition of what constitutes the basic structure, as this list continues to expand.
He pointed out how the Supreme Court turned upside down the article regarding the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary by introducing the collegium system, noting that the interpretation of this doctrine is shaped by “unelected judges who have different ideologies.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
