All questions of Basic Structure of the Constitution for UPSC CSE Exam

Scope of Article 356 and the misuse of President's Rule

The major issue discussed in the S.R. Bommai case (1994) was the scope of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution and the misuse of President's Rule by the central government.

Background:
- The case arose from the dismissal of the state government of Karnataka by the central government under Article 356.
- The Governor had recommended the imposition of President's Rule citing breakdown of law and order in the state, which was contested by the state government.

Key Points of Discussion:
- The Supreme Court examined the limits of the power of the central government to impose President's Rule in a state.
- It emphasized that Article 356 should only be used as a last resort when the constitutional machinery in a state has completely broken down.
- The court also laid down guidelines to prevent the misuse of Article 356, such as requiring the central government to provide valid reasons for imposing President's Rule.

Significance:
- The S.R. Bommai case set important precedents regarding the use of Article 356, ensuring that it is not misused for political purposes.
- It strengthened the principles of federalism and the autonomy of state governments in India.

In conclusion, the S.R. Bommai case was a landmark judgment that clarified the scope of Article 356 and prevented its misuse, thereby upholding the principles of democracy and federalism in the country.

The primary purpose of the Basic Structure Doctrine is to preserve the core principles and philosophy of the original Constitution. It ensures that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution, known as its "basic structure," cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament. This doctrine helps maintain the integrity of the Constitution's foundational values.

The Kesavananda Bharati case listed several basic structures of the Indian Constitution, including the supremacy of the Constitution, federal character, and secular character. However, "strong executive powers" are not explicitly mentioned as part of the basic structure.

The 39th Amendment Act, passed during the Emergency Period, placed the election of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of the judiciary. This was done to shield these positions from judicial intervention and protect them from legal challenges.

The Minerva Mills case (1980) emphasized that the Constitution, and not the Parliament, is supreme. This case reinforced the concept of limited amending power and highlighted the importance of the Constitution's supremacy.

The case of Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992) added the concept of "Rule of Law" to the list of basic features of the Indian Constitution.

The principle that the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment" was established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and can be restricted by the concept of the basic structure. This case established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the principle that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution does not include the power to destroy it. The judgment implied that while the Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot rewrite its fundamental structure.