Other Important Polity Principles

By /

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure

  • Historical Context & Evolution:
    • Shankari Prasad Case (1951): The Court held that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
    • Golak Nath Case (1967): Overturned Shankari Prasad. The Court held that Fundamental Rights are “transcendental and immutable” and that Parliament cannot amend them.
    • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): A landmark 7-judge bench overruled Golak Nath. It upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution but introduced the rider that this power cannot be used to alter its “Basic Structure.” This was a middle path.
    • Post-Kesavananda Reinforcement: The doctrine was solidified in Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975), where the SC struck down a clause inserted by the 39th Amendment that placed the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial scrutiny.
  • Judicial Elaboration of Basic Features: Over time, the Supreme Court has added to the list:
    • Judicial Independence (S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India)
    • Concept of Equality (Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India)
    • Secularism (S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India)
    • Federalism (S.R. Bommai Case)
    • Rule of Law (Indira Nehru Gandhi Case)
    • Freedom of Speech and Expression
  • Critical Analysis:
    • Pro: Acts as the conscience of the Constitution, preventing a democratically elected majority from becoming tyrannical.
    • Con: Critics argue it is undemocratic as unelected judges can veto the will of Parliament. The list of basic features is also not explicitly defined, leading to judicial subjectivity.

2. Doctrine of Separation of Powers

  • Constitutional Provisions Reflecting the Doctrine:
    • Article 50: (Directive Principle) Directs the State to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
    • Article 122 & 212: Courts cannot inquire into the proceedings of Parliament/Legislature.
    • Articles 121 & 211: Restrictions on discussions in Parliament/State Legislature concerning the conduct of judges.
  • Significant Cases:
    • Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1955): The Court stated that the Indian Constitution does not contemplate a rigid separation of powers.
    • I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): Reiterated that separation of powers is part of the Basic Structure.
    • Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017): The Aadhaar judgment highlighted how the doctrine is essential to check the overreach of any organ.

3. Rule of Law

  • Dicey’s Three Pillars in Detail:
    1. Supremacy of Law: No one can be punished except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner.
    2. Equality before Law: Every individual, irrespective of rank or status, is subject to the same ordinary law and jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.
    3. The Constitution is a result of the Ordinary Law of the Land: Dicey emphasized that in countries like Britain, the rights are a product of judicial decisions, not a written constitution. (This part is not entirely applicable to India, which has a written constitution.)
  • Indian Application:
    • Article 14: Embodies the principle of equality before law and equal protection of laws.
    • Article 21 (Right to Life): The Supreme Court has expanded this to include the right to live with human dignity, a clean environment, and speedy trial—all extensions of the Rule of Law.
    • ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976): A low point for the Rule of Law in India, where the SC held that during an emergency, even the right to life under Article 21 could be suspended. This decision was later overruled conceptually.

4. Doctrine of Checks and Balances

  • Detailed Examples of Checks:
    • Legislature over Executive:
      • No-Confidence Motion: Can remove the government.
      • Adjournment Motion: To discuss a matter of urgent public importance.
      • Financial Control: No tax can be levied or money spent without parliamentary authorization through the budget.
      • Department-related Standing Committees: Scrutinize the work of ministries.
    • Executive over Legislature:
      • Ordinance Making Power (Article 123): Allows the President to legislate when Parliament is not in session.
      • Veto Powers: The President can send a bill back for reconsideration (suspensive veto).
    • Judiciary over Legislature & Executive:
      • Power of Judicial Review: To invalidate laws and executive actions.
      • Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Allows the judiciary to act on behalf of the public.

5. Judicial Review

  • Constitutional Basis:
    • Article 13(2): Mandates that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, and any law made in contravention shall be void.
    • Article 32: The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Right to Constitutional Remedies).
    • Article 226: High Courts have the power to issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but for “any other purpose.”
  • Scope of Judicial Review:
    • It extends to reviewing constitutional amendments (post-Kesavananda), administrative actions, and legislative competence.
  • Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint:
    • Activism: The judiciary actively uses its power to shape social and economic policies (e.g., Vishaka Guidelines on sexual harassment).
    • Restraint: The judiciary exercises caution and defers to the wisdom of the legislature and executive, intervening only in case of a clear violation.

6. Constitutional Morality

  • Deepening the Concept:
    • It’s not just about what the Constitution says, but why it says it. It’s about the “spirit” of the Constitution.
    • It requires all state functionaries—from the Prime Minister to a constable—to act in a manner that is consistent with the constitutional values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
  • Landmark Judgments Relying on Constitutional Morality:
    • Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality under Section 377 IPC, emphasizing autonomy, dignity, and individual liberty.
    • Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018): Struck down adultery under Section 497 IPC, stating it perpetuates gender stereotypes and denies individual dignity.
    • Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017): Declared instant Triple Talaq unconstitutional, upholding the dignity of Muslim women.

7. Doctrine of Eclipse

  • Key Nuance: It applies only to pre-constitutional laws and laws that violate Fundamental Rights.
  • How it Works: The law is not dead; it is in a dormant state. It can be “revived” if the Fundamental Right that eclipsed it is amended, making the law consistent with the amended right.
  • Contrast with Article 13(1): For pre-constitutional laws, they are void “to the extent of inconsistency” (doctrine of eclipse). For post-constitutional laws, if they violate Fundamental Rights, they are “void ab initio” (from the beginning).

8. Doctrine of Severability

  • The Test: The key question is: “Would the legislature have enacted the valid part if it had known that the rest of the statute was invalid?”
    • If the answer is YES, the valid part survives.
    • If the answer is NO, the entire statute is struck down.
  • Case Example: In R.M.D.C. vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court severed the unconstitutional parts of the Prize Competition Act and upheld the rest.

9. Doctrine of Laches

  • Purpose: This is an equitable doctrine. It is used to discourage stale claims and prevent injustice that might arise from the delay, such as the loss of evidence or change of circumstances.
  • Not a Statute of Limitation: There is no fixed time period. The court has discretion based on the facts of the case.
  • Exception for Public Interest: Courts are generally more lenient in entertaining PILs even after a delay if the issue is of significant public importance (e.g., environmental degradation).

10. Doctrine of Pleasure (Article 310)

  • Origin: Derived from the English Crown’s power to dismiss a civil servant at will.
  • Constitutional Safeguards (Article 311): The pleasure doctrine is not arbitrary. It is tempered by Article 311, which provides two key safeguards:
    1. No person shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed him.
    2. No such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges against him.
  • Exceptions to Article 311 Safeguards: The safeguards are not available in cases of (a) conviction on a criminal charge, (b) where it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, and (c) where the President/Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, an inquiry is not expedient.

11. Harmonious Construction

  • Principle: The statute must be read as a whole, and every provision should be construed with reference to the context and other provisions. The interpretation that makes the statute consistent and harmonious should be adopted.
  • Example: In the CPIL vs. Union of India (2011) case (2G case), the Supreme Court used harmonious construction to reconcile the government’s policy of first-come-first-served with the constitutional mandate of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.

12. Doctrine of Pith and Substance

  • Federal Context: In a system with Union, State, and Concurrent Lists (Seventh Schedule), legislative conflicts are inevitable. This doctrine is the primary tool to resolve them.
  • Process: The court looks at the true character, essence, or “pith and substance” of the law. If the law, in its true nature, falls under an entry in the legislature’s own list, it is valid, even if it has an “incidental encroachment” on a matter in another list.
  • Case Example: A State law on “betting and gambling” (State List) might incidentally affect “contracts” (Union List), but it would be upheld because its pith and substance relates to a State subject.

This will close in 0 seconds

Scroll to Top