Power to Amend does not means Power to Destroy

Abstract

The Chief Justice of India, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, has stated that the "basic structure doctrine" serves as a
guiding principle for those who interpret and implement the constitution, especially when the way forward
is complex and challenging. In other words, it is a reliable point of reference that helps to navigate the
difficulties that may arise when applying the constitution in practice.. Doctrine of Basic Structure is a judge
made doctrine where Parliament's unlimited power to amend the Constitution of India is subject to only one
restriction that is it should not dilute or violate the basic structure or framework of Constitution. The ability
of Parliament to amend the Constitution is restricted to the extent that it does not change the fundamental
framework of the Indian Constitution. Certain features or structure of Constitution is required to be
protected against the amending power of parliament .The main aim behind the doctrine is to protect the
Law-makers intention while drafting the Constitution of India and ensures the supremacy of constitution. It
safeguards the spirit of India's constitution.
The Doctrine is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution of India , it was evolved over a time after many
petitions were filed in the court . On April 24,1973 landmark judgment was given by a special bench
comprising of 13 Judge of Supreme court of India in 1 Kesavananda bharathi Vs State of Kerala , held that
Article 368 of Constitution does not give power to parliament to amend the basic structure of Constitution
of India .
Now the Question whether there is a need for the Basic doctrine in today’s constitution ? Is it necessary to
revise the basic structure doctrine? Is there a need to revisit the basic structure doctrine ? The answer is yes
there is a need for basic structure doctrine even in today’s constitution.Whenever the question arises
whether the rights of people are violated or the basic structure is diluted , the need to revisit the basic
structure doctrine arises. In a recent case in which the 103rd amendment was challenged , the court held that
reservation is an exception to the general rule of equality and thus cannot be regarded as a basic feature of
the constitution . Hence the doctrine cannot be invoked. Even in today's constitution there is a need to revisit
the doctrine whenever the right is violated .