Basic structure doctrine vague, needs review: senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi

NEw new delhi, Senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi has termed Constitution's staple anatomical structure ism as “vague, ambiguous and ever-growing” and sought its review. “Parliament does not know as to what constitutes basic structure… Now, this vague, ambiguous and ever-growing doctrine is part of the Constitution by way of an interpretation,” he shared at an even on September 23. The doctrine came into being by way of the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati verdict, which held that though Parliament has power to amend under Article 368 of the Constitution, it did not have the power to emasculate its basic features. On April 24, 1973, a 13-judge bench, by a majority of 7:6, delivered the verdict to restrict the power of Parliament to amend every bit of the Constitution and simultaneously gave the judiciary the authority to review any amendment. Raising a fresh debate over the doctrine, which has become a subject of criticism for many, including former vice president Jagdeep Dhankar, Dwivedi said the doctrine was first imposed on Germany by the winners led by the US after it lost in the second world war. “The time has come to review the Keshvanand Bharati judgement,” he said while speaking on "Basic Structure of the Constitution" organised by Adhivakta Parishad Supreme Court Unit at "Pradhan Mantri Sangrahalaya" in the capital. He said the constituent assembly, having stalwarts like Dr B R Ambedkar, was unaware of this doctrine and consciously provided the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. “The issue is not that someone is planning to amend the Constitution.. Will take away the fundamental rights and delete secularism and socialism, etc. The question whether this doctrine has ever been tested. This has never been tested and only followed,” he said. He said independence was won by the people of this country and hence the power to amend has to be with citizens only and asked why Article 368 was brought by the framers. The Constitution, Dwivedi said, put a strict mechanism in place to amend the Constitution and provided that any such bill has to be passed by the two-third majority of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Moreover, the Bill has to be ratified by half of the states as well, he added. He said the doctrine does not provide the list as to what constitutes basic structure as the list is ever-growing. He gave the example as to how the Supreme Court “turned upside down” the article pertaining to appointment of judges in higher judiciary by bringing up the collegium system of judges appointing judges. Moreover, this doctrine is expanded and interpreted by “unelected judges who have different ideologies”, he added. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.