‘Law validity can’t be challenged for Basic Structure’s violation’

• A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, while upholding the State’s power to legislate to regulate madrasas, was responding to whether the Basic Structure doctrine can be applied to invalidate an ordinary legislation.

Highlights:

• The Supreme Court on November 5, 2024, ruled that the validity of a law cannot be challenged on the grounds that it violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld the State’s power to legislate on madrasas, addressing whether the Basic Structure doctrine could apply to invalidate ordinary legislation.

Understanding the Basic Structure Doctrine:

• Components of Basic Structure: Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that the Basic Structure doctrine comprises “undefined concepts” such as democracy, federalism, and secularism.
• Limiting Judicial Intervention: According to the CJI, allowing courts to strike down laws based on these concepts could lead to uncertainty in constitutional adjudication.

Why the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Law Was Upheld:

• The Allahabad High Court had previously questioned the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act, 2004, claiming it disregarded secularism. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that any challenge to a law’s validity based on secularism must prove a violation of specific constitutional provisions, not merely the broader Basic Structure.

Reference to Landmark Cases:

• Raj Narain Case and Basic Structure Doctrine: The CJI referenced the Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain case, where the Supreme Court first applied the Basic Structure doctrine to strike down a Constitutional Amendment following the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling.
• Distinction Between Statutes and Constitutional Amendments: The judges in the Raj Narain case made a clear distinction between ordinary statutes and Constitutional Amendments. CJI A.N. Ray remarked that using the Basic Structure doctrine to assess statutes would be akin to “rewriting the Constitution.”

Judicial Opinions on Basic Structure Doctrine in Statutes:

• Justice K.K. Mathew's Perspective: Justice Mathew criticized the Basic Structure concept as “too vague and indefinite” to serve as a yardstick for validating ordinary laws.
• Justice Y.V. Chandrachud’s View: He noted that Constitutional Amendments and ordinary laws belong to different legal domains and are subject to distinct limitations.

Prelims Takeaways

• About Allahabad High Court