BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 141 -
POLITY
News: Under
Constitution, law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all
What's in the news?
● Vice-President
of India Jagdeep Dhankhar’s public criticism
of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) judgment may be
seen as comments by a high constitutional authority against “the law of the
land”.
Key takeaways:
● The
Vice-President had remarked that judicial review, as was done in the case of
the NJAC law, diluted parliamentary sovereignty. He had used terms like
“one-upmanship”.
● The
Vice-President had said he did not “subscribe” to the landmark Kesavananda
Bharati judgment of 1973 which had propounded the ‘Basic Structure’, upheld
judicial review and limited the Parliament’s power under Article 368 to amend the
Constitution.
Article 141:
● The
Supreme Court has held that its judicial pronouncements lay down the law.
● Article
141 of the Constitution mandates that
law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts including the
Supreme Court itself.
● The
NJAC judgment, which upholds the collegium system of judicial appointments,
exists, the court is bound to comply with the verdict.
● Laws subject to judicial
review:
○ The
Parliament is free to bring a new law on judicial appointments, possibly
through a constitutional amendment, but that too would be subject to judicial
review.
Kesavananda Bharati Case:
● The
basic structure doctrine depicts that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that can’t be
altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament.
● Basic
features of the Indian Constitution are not
explicitly defined by the Judiciary. It is widely believed that democracy,
federalism, independence of the judiciary, secularism etc. are part of the
basic features.
‘Checks and balances’:
● It
had made it clear that judicial review is not a means to usurp parliamentary
sovereignty, but only part of a “system of checks and balances” to ensure
constitutional functionaries do not exceed their limits.
NJAC Judgement:
● The
judgement said that Article 368 postulates only a ‘procedure’ for amendment of
the Constitution.
● The
same could not be treated as a ‘power’ vested in the Parliament to amend the
Constitution so as to alter the ‘core’ of the Constitution, which has also been
described as the ‘basic features/basic structure’ of the Constitution” and
upholds judicial independence as a basic feature of the Constitution.