The biggest critique of Basic Structure doctrine from its inception has been it being shrouded in confusion, vagueness and a formulation which is loose and not precise. Critically examine.
Main Body
The Basic Structure Doctrine comes from Supreme Court's ruling in 1973 in the Kesavananda Bharati Case. SC ruled that Parliament could amend any provision of the Constitution, provided it doesn't alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus, it is a judicial innovation, not a constitutional mandate. It is a means to preserve the founding fathers' vision of Indian Polity.
The SC defines at, and broadens it, from time to time -
FSC in S.R. Rommai case, SC said secularism and federalism are part of basic structure.
In IR Coelho case, SC said Judicial Review is a part of basic structure.
However, the biggest criticism for basic structure comes from its vagueness
Not defined anywhere. Depends on the need/interpretation of judiciary.
Can be used for judicial overreach
Innovative inclusions in basic structure may be used by judiciary (not a popular body) to counter laws made by Parliament (people's representative).
Even the inclusions are not precise [ → ] What constitutes secularism? Definitions can change overtime.
Judiciary often overturns its verdicts (eg. LGBTQ rights own the years) Similar confusion can occur over basic structure
— GAURAV OJHA · AIR 204
Conclusion
28 words
Open original scan
Page 3
GAURAV OJHA
Indian Constitution - Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure
Basic Structure
Critique and Vagueness of Basic Structure Doctrine
217
Total words
3
Paragraphs
analytical
Tone