Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App section source |
|||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Common law legal doctrine}}
{{Indian Constitution TOC}}
The '''basic structure doctrine''' is a [[common law]] [[legal doctrine]] that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in [[India]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Uganda]]. It was developed by the [[Supreme Court of India]] in a series of [[constitutional law]] cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in ''[[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]]'', where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world
In ''Kesavananda Bharati'', Justice [[Hans Raj Khanna]] propounded that the [[Constitution of India]]
The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional amendments had been that any part of the Constitution was amendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368.
Line 13:
The Supreme Court's position on constitutional amendments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its "basic structure".
The basic structure doctrine was rejected by the [[High Court of Singapore]]<ref>''Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs'' [1989] 1 SLR(R) 461</ref> and the [[Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea]].<ref name="Donigi2010">{{cite news |url=https://www.thenational.com.pg/olippac-and-the-supreme-court-ruling/ |title=OLIPPAC and the Supreme Court ruling |author=Peter Donigi |work=The National |date=8 July 2010 |access-date=29 June 2025}}</ref> It was initially also rejected by the [[Federal Court of Malaysia]], but was later accepted by it. Conversely, the doctrine was initially approved in [[Belize]] by the [[Supreme Court of Belize|Supreme Court]] but was later reversed on appeal by the Belize Court of Appeal.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=15 May 2014 |title=Civil Appeal No. 18 19 21 of 2012 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v THE BRITISH CARIBBEAN BANK LIMITED v DEAN BOYCE and FORTIS ENERGY INTERNATIONAL (BELIZE) INC v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |url=https://www.belizejudiciary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Civil-Appeal-No.-18-19-21-of-2012-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-v-THE-BRITISH-CARIBBEAN-BANK-LIMITED-v-DEAN-BOYCE-and-FORTIS-ENERGY-INTERNATIONAL-BELIZE-INC-v-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL.pdf |access-date=20 December 2023 |website=Judiciary of Belize |at=Section [3](iii) |archive-date=29 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240129010724/https://www.belizejudiciary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Civil-Appeal-No.-18-19-21-of-2012-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-v-THE-BRITISH-CARIBBEAN-BANK-LIMITED-v-DEAN-BOYCE-and-FORTIS-ENERGY-INTERNATIONAL-BELIZE-INC-v-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
==Definition==
That the Constitution has "basic features" was first theorised in 1964, by Justice [[Janardan Raghunath Mudholkar|J.R. Mudholkar]] in his dissent, in the case of ''Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan''. He wrote
The [[Supreme Court of India]], through the decisive judgement of Justice
# Supremacy of the Constitution
# [[Rule of law]]
# The principle of [[separation of powers]]{{cn|reason=''The Presidential system of America is based upon the separation of the Executive and the Legislature. So that the President and his Secretaries cannot be members of the Congress. The Draft Constitution does not recognise this doctrine.'' https://www.constitutionofindia.net/debates/04-nov-1948/ #7.48.200|date=March 2025}}
# The objectives specified in the [[Preamble to the Constitution of India|preamble]] to the [[Constitution of India]]
# [[Judicial review]]
# Articles 32 and 226
# [[Federalism]] (including financial liberty of states under [[s:Constitution of India/Part XII|Articles 282 and 293]])
# The [[Sovereignty|sovereign]], [[Democracy|democratic]], [[republic]]an structure
# [[Freedom]] and [[dignity]] of the individual
Line 40 ⟶ 39:
# [[Judicial independence|Independence of the judiciary]]
# Effective [[access to justice]]
# Powers of the
==Background==
Line 81 ⟶ 80:
* A [[republic]]an and [[democracy|democratic]] system.
* The [[secular]] character of the Constitution.
* Maintenance of the [[separation of powers]].{{cn|reason=''The Presidential system of America is based upon the separation of the Executive and the Legislature. So that the President and his Secretaries cannot be members of the Congress. The Draft Constitution does not recognise this doctrine.'' https://www.constitutionofindia.net/debates/04-nov-1948/ #7.48.200|date=March 2025}}
* The [[Federation|federal]] character of the Constitution.
Line 136 ⟶ 135:
|align = center
|quote = Any amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.
|source = Limitation of Amendment Procedures and the Constituent Power; Indian Year Book of International Affairs,
}}
Line 161 ⟶ 160:
The basic structure doctrine was invoked by the [[Supreme Court of Judicature of Belize]] in ''[[Bowen v Attorney General]]''<ref>''[[Bowen v Attorney General]]'' BZ 2009 SC 2</ref> in rejecting the [[Belize Constitution (Sixth Amendment) Bill 2008]], which had sought to exclude certain deprivation of property rights from judicial review. The court recognised the fundamental rights granted by the constitution, respect for the rule of law and the right to the ownership of private property as basic features of the Belizean constitution, as well as the separation of powers, which [[Chief Justice of Belize|Chief Justice]] [[Abdulai Conteh]] noted had been recognised by the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] in ''Hinds v The Queen''<ref>''Hinds v The Queen'' [1977] AC 195</ref> (which was not a constitutional amendment case<ref name="BCBvAGBelize2011">{{cite web|title=British Caribbean Bank Ltd v AG Belize Claim No. 597 of 2011|publisher=[[Supreme Court of Judicature of Belize]]|url=https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7738.pdf|date=2012|access-date=2020-11-22|url-status=live|archive-date=2020-11-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201122015535/https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7738.pdf}}</ref>{{rp|41}}) as implicit in Westminster model constitutions in the Caribbean Commonwealth realm.<ref name="OBrien2013">{{cite web|last=O'Brien|first=Derek|date=2013-05-28|title=Derek O'Brien: The Basic Structure Doctrine and the Courts of the Commonwealth Caribbean|url=https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/05/28/derek-obrien-the-basic-structure-doctrine-and-the-courts-of-the-commonwealth-caribbean/|publisher=UK Constitutional Law Association|work=UK Constitutional Law Blog|access-date=2020-11-22|archive-date=2020-10-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201021101350/https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/05/28/derek-obrien-the-basic-structure-doctrine-and-the-courts-of-the-commonwealth-caribbean/|url-status=live}}</ref>
The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine in ''[[British Caribbean Bank Ltd v AG Belize]]''<ref>''[[British Caribbean Bank Ltd v AG Belize]]'' Claim No. 597 of 2011</ref><ref name="BCBvAGBelize2011"/><ref name="jusmundi_19th-december-2014">{{cite web|title=British Caribbean Bank Limited v. The Government of Belize PCA 2010-18|url=https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-british-caribbean-bank-ltd-v-the-government-of-belize-award-friday-19th-december-2014|publisher=[[Permanent Court of Arbitration]]|date=2014-12-19|access-date=2020-11-22|archive-date=2020-11-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201122030218/https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-british-caribbean-bank-ltd-v-the-government-of-belize-award-friday-19th-december-2014|url-status=live}}</ref> and struck down parts of the [[Belize Telecommunications (Amendment) Act 2011]] and [[Belize Constitution (Eighth) Amendment Act 2011]]. The amendments had sought to preclude the court from deciding on whether deprivation of property by the government was for a public purpose, and to remove any limits on the [[National Assembly (Belize)|National Assembly]]'s power to alter the constitution. This was found to impinge on the separation of powers, which had earlier been identified as part of the basic structure of the Belizean constitution.<ref name="OBrien2013"/>
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Supreme Court, ruling that "the so-called basic structure doctrine is not a part of the law of Belize and does not apply to the Belize Constitution".<ref name=":1" />
=== Cyprus ===
The Cypriot Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine in 29 October 2020, in ΚΛΟΓΟΔΙΚΕΙΟ ΚΥΠΡΟΥ, ΑΝΔΡΕΑΣ ΜΙΧΑΗΛΙΔΗΣ κ.α. v. ΓΕΝΙΚΟΥ ΕΦΟΡΟΥ ΕΚΛΟΓΗΣ κ.α., 29 Οκτωβρίου 2020, (Εκλογική Αίτηση Αρ. 1/2019), to declare unconstitutional a constitutional amendment that modified the election legal framework.
===Israel===
Line 173 ⟶ 175:
The basic structure doctrine was first cited with approval by the Federal Court in ''obiter dicta'' in ''Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia'',<ref>[2010] 2 M.L.J. 333.</ref> before ultimately being applied by the same court in ''Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Ano'r Case''<ref>[2017] 3 M.L.J. 561.</ref> and ''Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & 2 O'rs & 2 Other Cases''.<ref>Federal Court, 29 January 2018.</ref> In those cases, the Federal Court held that the vesting of the judicial power of the Federation in the civil courts formed part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and could not be removed even by constitutional amendment.
===Papua New Guinea===
The [[Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea]] found that the basic structure doctrine was not applicable in Papua New Guinea as part of a 2010 judgment on [[Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates|an organic law]], referring to it as a "foreign doctrine".<ref name="Donigi2010"/><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://actnowpng.org/sites/default/files/SC%20REF%201%20OF%202008%20OLIPAC%20_EDITED%20No%202_%20final%20copy.pdf |title=Special Reference Pursuant to Constitution, Section 19: In the Matter of the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates, Reference by the Provincial Executive Council of the Fly River Provincial Government of Western Province |publisher=Papua New Guinea Supreme Court of Justice |date=7 July 2010 |pages=40–41 |quote=Under the structure of government and distribution of powers between the three arms of government, the legislative power is vested in the parliament and it has unlimited law-making powers. However, the exercise of its legislative power is always subject to the ''Constitution''. The exercise of the legislative power to amend or alter the ''Constitution'' is not made subject to any foreign doctrine such as the "basic structure" doctrine. The ''Constitution'' is intended to be construed in accordance with the principles and the use of certain materials as aids to interpretation provided in the ''Constitution''.}}</ref>
===Pakistan===
Line 185 ⟶ 190:
=== Uganda ===
In December 2017, the Ugandan parliament passed a Constitutional Amendment which removed the age limit of 75 years for the President and Chairpersons of the Local Council.
==See also==
| |||